Case Title: DENISE KAY PRICKETT, n/k/a DENISE KAY WENDELIN V. BRADLEY KENT PRICKETT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 06-282

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
DENISE KAY PRICKETT, n/k/a DENISE KAY WENDELIN V. BRADLEY KENT PRICKETT2007 WY 153167 P.3d 661Case Number: 06-282Decided: 09/25/2007
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
DENISE KAY 
PRICKETT, n/k/a DENISE KAY WENDELIN,

 
 
Appellant

(Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
BRADLEY KENT 
PRICKETT,

 
 
Appellee

(Defendant).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofGoshenCounty

The 
Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Eric Eugene Jones, Wheatland, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, 
HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]           
Appellant 
Denise Wendelin, formerly Denise Prickett, claims that the district court erred 
in its decision that Wyoming, not Nebraska, retains exclusive, continuing 
jurisdiction pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302 over custody and visitation 
issues arising from the parties' Wyoming divorce decree.  Alternatively, she contends that the 
district court abused its discretion in failing to decline jurisdiction pursuant 
to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307 because Nebraska courts provide the most 
convenient forum.  We 
affirm.

 
 

 

[¶2]           
Ms. 
Wendelin presents the following issues:

 
 

1.                  
Are the 
District Court's findings that the State of Nebraska did not have jurisdiction of the 
child custody case contrary to the evidence?

 
 

2.                  
Are the 
District Court's findings that Wyoming is the most convenient forum for child 
custody and visitation arbitrary and capricious?

 
 

 

[¶3]           
Ms. 
Wendelin and Bradley Prickett were married in 1991 in Torrington, Wyoming.  During their marriage, the couple had two 
children.  Ms. Wendelin filed a 
petition for divorce in Wyoming, and the district court granted the 
petition and dissolved the marriage on December 5, 2001.  The court awarded Ms. Wendelin primary 
custody of the couple's children, and set out a comprehensive visitation 
schedule for Mr. Prickett.  In the 
summer of 2002, Ms. Wendelin moved with the children to Nebraska.  In 2003, in response to a petition filed 
by Mr. Prickett, the Wyoming district court entered an order 
modifying visitation.

 
 

[¶4]           
The 
current conflict began in the summer of 2006 when Mr. Prickett filed a motion in 
the Wyoming district court entitled "Motion To Enforce August 20, 2003 Order 
Regarding Visitation With The Minor Children And To Determine That The Wyoming 
Order Is Controlling And That Wyoming Has Continuing, Exclusive Jurisdiction In 
This Case."  The motion alleged in 
pertinent part that the original Wyoming 
divorce decree was modified by order of the Wyoming district court on August 20, 2003, and 
that in September 2005, "the District Court of Lincoln County Nebraska 
. . . entered an order in this case which changed the visitation 
schedule with the minor children."  
The Nebraska order was attached to the 
motion.  In his motion, Mr. Prickett 
asserted that "pursuant to the UCCJEA Defendant believes Wyoming has continuing 
exclusive jurisdiction of this matter and that the Wyoming Order entered August 
20, 2003 is the controlling Order." 

 
 

[¶5]           
Ms. 
Wendelin responded with a motion to dismiss in which she asserted that the 
Wyoming 
district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine custody and 
visitation issues related to the original decree.  Alternatively, she claimed that, 
pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307, Wyoming was an inconvenient forum for the 
custody proceeding.  In support of 
her motion, she alleged that the Nebraska order 
was controlling and relied upon a stipulation of the parties in which they 
agreed that the Wyoming decree "may be 
registered and enforced in the State of Nebraska."

 
 

[¶6]           
The 
district court held a hearing in August 2006.  It was undisputed that Mr. Prickett 
continued to reside in Wyoming and that Ms. 
Wendelin lived in Nebraska.  Additionally, the parties stipulated to 
several facts.  Specifically, they 
agreed on the dates that Ms. Wendelin and the children moved to Nebraska and 
that it was currently the children's home state, that Mr. Prickett exercised his 
summer visitation in Wyoming, that there were no domestic violence issues in the 
case, that the distance between the Wyoming and Nebraska courthouses was 
approximately 200 miles, that either state could expeditiously hear the case, 
and that the Nebraska court had entered an order modifying visitation in 
2005.  

 
 

[¶7]           
Mr. 
Prickett testified that the children spend their weekend and summer visitation 
at his residence in Wyoming, and that, in light 
of his work schedule, the Wyoming custody order was preferable.  Ms. Wendelin also testified.  Her testimony largely focused on her 
assertion that Mr. Prickett had agreed to the Nebraska visitation schedule.  She also testified that the children had 
been attending Nebraska schools for four years, 
and that their counselors were in Nebraska. 

 
 

[¶8]           
The 
district court took the matter under advisement and subsequently issued a 
decision letter concluding that it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction 
pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302, the Nebraska order notwithstanding.  The court also determined that Wyoming 
was an appropriate forum to resolve visitation and custody issues and rejected 
Ms. Wendelin's request that the court decline jurisdiction on the basis of the 
inconvenient forum provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307.  Ms. Wendelin now appeals. 

 
 

 

[¶9]           
We 
review a district court's decision regarding its jurisdiction in child custody 
matters de novo.  Ritter v. Ritter, 989 P.2d 109, 111 
(Wyo. 
1999).  In contrast, we review a court's decision whether 
or not to decline jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum provisions of Wyo. 
Stat. § 20-5-307 for an abuse of discretion.  Id.

 
 

[¶10]       
This case 
requires us to apply Wyoming's version of the Uniform Child Custody 
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-5-201 through 
20-5-502 (LexisNexis 2007).  
Because 
the divorce decree originated in Wyoming, the district court must initially 
determine if it retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302.  If the court 
concludes that it has jurisdiction, it must then decide whether it should 
decline jurisdiction pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307 because the other 
state provides a more appropriate forum for resolution of the issues 
presented.

 
 

[¶11]       
Ms. 
Wendelin first claims that the district court's finding that it retained 
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction was contrary to the evidence.  She relies on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-5-302(a), which states:

 
 
(a)       Except as 
provided in W.S. 20-5-304, a court of this state which has made a child custody 
determination consistent with W.S. 20-5-301 or 20-5-303 has exclusive, 
continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:

 
 

(i)                 
A court 
of this state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person 
acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no 
longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training 
and personal relationships; or

 
 

(ii)               
A court 
of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's 
parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this 
state.

 
 
(Emphasis added.)  We have previously recognized, when 
interpreting statutes, that the word "and" is conjunctive.  Clark v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety and Comp. Div., 968 P.2d 436, 438 
(Wyo. 
1998).  Webster's recognizes that 
the word "and" is "used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex 
sentence which is true only if both 
constituent sentences are true."  
Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 43 (1977) (emphasis added).  The use of the conjunctive "and" thus 
requires both (a)(i) conditions to be met.  
In order to prevail, Ms. Wendelin must establish that neither parent has 
"a significant connection with this state."  The evidence is undisputed that Mr. 
Prickett still lives in Wyoming and, therefore, has a significant 
connection with the state.  
Utilizing a straightforward approach, the district court applied an 
unambiguous statutory provision to an undisputed fact and determined that it 
retained jurisdiction because the two-part test of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-5-302(a)(i) was not met.

 
 

[¶12]       
Nevertheless, Ms. Wendelin claims 
that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302 supports her position.  She asserts that section (a)(i) contains 
two tests, either of which divests a Wyoming court of jurisdiction.  She contends that the Wyoming court loses 
continuing jurisdiction if neither parent has a significant connection with the 
state or there is no longer substantial 
evidence available in the state.  
Because the children have been living in Nebraska, she contends that the second test under section 
(a)(i) is met because "substantial evidence is no longer available" in 
Wyoming.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302(a)(i).  In effect, Ms. Wendelin asks us to 
interpret the statutory provision "and" as "or."  We decline to do 
so.

 
 

[¶13]       
Alternatively, Ms. Wendelin contends 
that the district court abused its discretion in rejecting her request to 
decline jurisdiction.  She makes two 
claims relevant to the inconvenient forum statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
20-5-307.  The first is that Mr. 
Prickett consented to jurisdiction in Nebraska.  The second is that Nebraska is simply the 
better forum.  The applicable 
inconvenient forum statute states:

 
 

(a)               
A court 
of this state which has jurisdiction under this act to make a child custody 
determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it 
determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a 
court of another state is a more appropriate forum.  The issue of inconvenient forum may be 
raised upon motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another 
court.

 
 

(b)               
Before 
determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall 
consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise 
jurisdiction.  For this purpose, the 
court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all 
relevant factors, including:

 
 

(i)                 
Whether 
domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which 
state could best protect the parties and the child;

 
 

(ii)               
The 
length of time the child has resided outside this state;

 
 

(iii)             
The 
distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would 
assume jurisdiction;

 
 

(iv)             
The 
relative financial circumstances of the parties;

 
 

(v)               
Any 
agreement of the parties as to which state should assume 
jurisdiction;

 
 

(vi)             
The 
nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, 
including testimony of the child;

 
 

(vii)           
The 
ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the 
procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

 
 

(viii)         
The 
familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending 
litigation.

 
 

(c)               
If a 
court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court 
of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon 
condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another 
designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and 
proper.

 
 

(d)               
A court 
of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this act if a child 
custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another 
proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other 
proceeding.

 
 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307. 

 
 

[¶14]       
In its 
decision letter, the district court wrote:

 
 
The Court finds that Wyoming is not an 
inconvenient forum to determine issues of visitation.  Evidence about visitation is just as 
likely to be in Wyoming, where the Defendant 
[Mr. Prickett] exercises his visitation, as in Nebraska.  The children have not lived away from 
Wyoming for a 
lengthy time, the distance between the parties is not substantial, the parties 
both earn reasonable incomes, and this Court is familiar with the case and able 
to expeditiously determine the issue.  
Although the Nebraska Order recites that "the parties stipulate that the 
Judgment from the State of Wyoming may be 
registered and enforced in the State of Nebraska," such a stipulation does not confer Nebraska with 
jurisdiction to modify the Wyoming Order.

 
 
(Emphasis in original.)  The excerpt demonstrates that the court 
did consider the factors identified in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307.  The court's factual findings are 
supported by evidence contained in the record.  Additionally, we find no error in the 
district court's analysis of the parties' stipulation regarding registration and 
enforcement of the original decree in Nebraska.    

 
 

[¶15]       
Nebraska allows foreign custody orders to be 
registered in Nebraska to ease enforcement of those 
orders.  Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1252 
(2007).  Once registered, the order 
is enforceable "in the same manner as a determination issued by a court of 
[Nebraska]."  Id.  The Wyoming district court properly recognized the distinction 
between Mr. Prickett consenting to registration of his Wyoming custody order and consenting to Nebraska taking 
jurisdiction.  Even if Mr. Prickett 
had agreed to jurisdiction in Nebraska, that would only be one of the 
factors to be weighed and considered.  
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307(b)(v).

 
 

[¶16]       
Additionally, we note that 
Nebraska has 
also adopted the UCCJEA, with jurisdictional requirements nearly identical to 
those set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-5-301 to 20-5-310.  See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1238 through 
43-1247.  Specifically, Neb. Rev. 
Stat. § 43-1240 (2007) provides:

 
 
Except as otherwise provided in 
section 43-1241, a court of this state may not modify a child custody 
determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has 
jurisdiction to make an initial determination under subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(2) 
of section 43-1238 and:

 
 
(1)       the court 
of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing 
jurisdiction under section 43-1239 or that a court of this state would be a more 
convenient forum under section 43-1244; or

 
 
(2)       a court of 
this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child's 
parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other 
state.

 
 
This statutory provision is 
substantially identical to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-303.  There is no evidence in the record that 
the Nebraska 
jurisdictional requirements were satisfied.

 
 

[¶17]       
In 
summary, the district court maintained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to 
resolve custody and visitation issues arising from the parties' original 
Wyoming 
divorce decree.  Additionally, we 
find no abuse of discretion in the district court's determination that 
Wyoming 
remained an appropriate jurisdictional forum.

 
 

[¶18]       
Affirmed.