Gaines v. Doby

20 Citing cases

  1. Hanson v. Belveal

    2012 WY 98 (Wyo. 2012)   Cited 33 times
    Affirming denial of father's petition to modify custody after noting that “Given that Mother had returned to Wyoming by the time of trial and that Father did not request consideration of his own relocation, the parties' respective relocations outside Wyoming were not factors for the district court's consideration in determining whether there had been a material change in circumstances. We therefore do not give the relocations any further consideration.”

    ”); White v. Bd. of Land Comm'rs, 595 P.2d 76, 79 (Wyo.1979) ( “Parties cannot confer jurisdiction by consent.”). [¶ 28] Our decision in this case does not conflict with and should not be construed to undermine our decisions in Gurney, 899 P.2d at 55, and Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 571 (Wyo.1990). In Gurney, the divorce decree granted the parents joint custody of their child, but within fifty days after the decree was entered, the parties agreed the arrangement was not working and each parent sought primary custody.

  2. Selvey v. Selvey

    2004 WY 166 (Wyo. 2004)   Cited 18 times

    When deciding a petition for modification, the district court's "'prime if not sole judicial objective * * * is to serve the best interests of the child.'" Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990). ( quoting Henson v. Henson, 384 P.2d 721, 723 (Wyo. 1963)).

  3. Semler v. Semler

    924 P.2d 422 (Wyo. 1996)   Cited 13 times
    Upholding the district court's custody decision rejecting expert opinion that the children had been sexually abused

    "This court has always recognized that the trial court exercises a broad discretion in the execution of its revisory powers in matters involving domestic relations." Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990) (citing Ayling v. Ayling, 661 P.2d 1054, 1056 (Wyo. 1983); Henson v. Henson, 384 P.2d 721, 723 (Wyo. 1963)). We will not interfere with the trial court's decision absent a procedural error or a clear abuse of discretion. Gaines, 794 P.2d at 570.

  4. Ready v. Ready

    906 P.2d 382 (Wyo. 1995)   Cited 15 times
    In Ready, we said that denying the children the experience of associating with their father can be "`sufficient for the court to interpose its authority and, by modification of the original decree, prescribe what must be done to preserve the child's right.'"

    In child custody modification matters the district court possesses inherent equitable powers independent of its statutory revisory power. Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 569-70 (Wyo. 1990) (citing Wardle v. Wardle, 464 P.2d 854, 856 (1970)). While the district court seeks to achieve its goal of serving the best interests of the child, it also "must strive to achieve a reasonable balance between the rights and affections of the parents."

  5. Gurney v. Gurney

    899 P.2d 52 (Wyo. 1995)   Cited 43 times
    In Gurney, the critical finding was the parties' agreement that the originally-ordered custody arrangement simply was not working. Gurney, 899 P.2d at 55. It is not a bare agreement to reopen the decree that represents a material change in circumstances, but rather the parents' agreement that the custodial arrangement is not at present working or serving the child's best interests.

    DISCUSSION In these matters, we use an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the decisions of the district court. Love v. Love, 851 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990) (citations omitted)). Our analysis of the issues presented in the instant case is promoted if we recognize this case does not involve the usual custody dispute, in which the court earlier awarded custody to one parent and the other is now attempting to reopen the order and change custody, asserting a substantial change of circumstances as justification for the requested reopening of the custodial order.

  6. Marquiss v. Marquiss

    837 P.2d 25 (Wyo. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    In Marquiss v. Marquiss, 837 P.2d 25, 41–42 (Wyo.1992), we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it required the custodial parent to pay the costs of transporting the children for visitation as a sanction for her failure to comply with its visitation order.

    In this case, whether or not the district court has jurisdiction to exercise discretion in ordering the mother to send her children to Wyoming involves the court's statutory and equitable authority to enforce its own custody determination. Wyo. Stat. §§ 20-2-113(a) (1989); 20-5-103(a)(ii); and 20-5-112(b). See also Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 569 (Wyo. 1990); Wardle v. Wardle, 464 P.2d 854, 856 (Wyo. 1970); and Urbach v. Urbach, 52 Wyo. 207, 226, 73 P.2d 953, 960 (1937) (the court possesses inherent equitable powers in child custody and visitation matters). The civil contempt citation referred to in "sub-issue A" of the mother's fourth issue fails to recognize that the district court issued the contempt citation solely because of the mother's failure to appear at the June 19, 1990 show cause hearing.

  7. Bachand v. Walters

    809 P.2d 284 (Wyo. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    Therefore, we conclude that the district court could properly clarify its earlier modification order in light of the circumstances of the parents and for the benefit of the children. See Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566 (Wyo. 1990). The husband asserts that the wife's appeal was meritless and asks this Court to so certify and to award costs and a penalty pursuant to W.R.A.P. 10.05.

  8. Roemmich v. Roemmich

    2010 WY 115 (Wyo. 2010)   Cited 16 times

    (c) A court having jurisdiction may modify an order concerning the care, custody and visitation of the children if there is a showing by either parent of a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question and that the modification would be in the best interests of the children pursuant to W.S. 20-2-201(a). [¶ 10] We construed this provision in Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990), in the context of the parents' requests to modify visitation, child support and medical insurance provisions in the original divorce decree. Father filed a petition to modify the divorce decree to clarify his visitation rights, asserting that Mother had failed to allow reasonable visitation in accordance with the decree.

  9. Rohrer v. Bureaus Investment

    235 P.3d 861 (Wyo. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    We have begun to question the validity of such a definition of abuse of discretion, and have suggested that "the ultimate issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990). See also, Love v. Love, 851 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1993).

  10. Sims v. Day

    2004 WY 124 (Wyo. 2004)   Cited 5 times
    In Sims, this Court concluded extraordinary circumstances did not exist when the trial court granted a motion to withdraw on the eve of trial, without a withdrawal hearing or a finding of extraordinary circumstances, and premised the withdrawal on counsel's statements in his motion that "representation [had] been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client-due to the client's neglect in communicating and complying with requests of [c]ounsel." Id. ¶¶ 2, 5, 11, 13, 99 P.3d at 966, 967, 969.

    We acknowledge that we have previously held that even in a proceeding that may have been limited to a contempt proceeding, the district court has the discretion to modify child custody matters. Ready v. Ready, 906 P.2d 382, 386 (Wyo. 1995) (citing Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 569-70 (Wyo. 1990); Wardle v. Wardle, 464 P.2d 854, 856 (Wyo. 1970) (in child custody modification matters the district court possesses inherent equitable powers independent of its statutory revisory power); and Marquiss v. Marquiss, 837 P.2d 25, 42-43 (Wyo. 1992) (the district court has the right to terminate a parent's custody based upon contempt for noncompliance with existing decree provisions for visitation)). Nevertheless, when proceeding to modify a decree, the district court cannot modify to punish the offending parent in contempt but must act to achieve its goal of serving the best interests of the child and striving to achieve a reasonable balance between the rights and affections of the parents. Ready, at 863 (citing Marquiss, at 45).