Case Title: In Interest of Bickerstaff

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
In Interest of Bickerstaff1997 WY 139950 P.2d 46Case Number: 97-113Decided: 12/12/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

In 
the Interest of KRISTA BICKERSTAFF, Minor.

 

VICKY BICKERSTAFF,  

Appellant (Defendant), 

 

v. 

 

The STATE of WYOMING,  

Appellee (Plaintiff).

 

Appeal 
from the Juvenile Court of Campbell County 

The 
Honorable Dan R. Price II, Judge

 

Representing Appellant: 

Terry D. Preuit, Gillette.

 Representing Appellee: 

William U. 
Hill, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; N. Denise 
Burke, Assistant Attorney General; and Kelly Meyer Korell, Assistant Attorney 
General.

 

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

MACY, Justice.

 

[¶1]      Appellant Vicky 
Bickerstaff appeals from the juvenile court's order which ruled that she was in 
criminal contempt of court because she took her child out of Wyoming without 
obtaining that court's prior consent.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Bickerstaff 
identifies two issues:

 

Is the Consent Decree void? If so, can [Bickerstaff] 
be found in contempt for violating the decree?

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      This case arises 
from a juvenile petition which alleged that Bickerstaff's child had been 
neglected. After the petition was filed, Bickerstaff signed an agreement in 
support of a consent decree under which she agreed to abide by certain 
conditions. The juvenile court entered a consent decree on the basis of the 
agreement. The consent decree ordered, among other things, that Bickerstaff 
would not to take her child out of Wyoming without obtaining the prior 
permission of the juvenile court. Bickerstaff subsequently violated that portion 
of the consent decree. 

 

[¶5]      Pursuant to a 
bench warrant, Bickerstaff was arrested and her child was placed in protective 
custody when they returned to Wyoming. The State filed an information, alleging 
that Bickerstaff was in criminal contempt of court. Bickerstaff moved to dismiss 
the information, arguing that the consent decree was void because the child's 
father did not sign the agreement. The juvenile court denied her motion. 
Thereafter, Bickerstaff entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving her 
right to appeal from the denial of her motion.

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶6]      Bickerstaff 
contends that the consent decree was void because the child's father refused to 
sign the agreement in support of the consent decree and that the contempt order 
was, therefore, unlawful. In reviewing a contempt order:

 

This Court assesses whether all the evidence which 
was presented is adequate enough to form the basis for a reasonable inference of 
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that 
evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. We will not 
substitute our judgment for that of the [fact finder] when we are applying this 
rule; our only duty is to determine whether a quorum of reasonable and rational 
individuals would, or even could, have come to the same result as the jury 
actually did.

 

ELR v. State (In Interest of EWR), 902 P.2d 696, 700 (Wyo. 1995) (citation 
omitted).

 

[¶7]      We can address 
this issue without deciding whether the underlying consent decree was valid 
because the validity of a court order is inconsequential in a contempt 
situation. This Court has been faced with similar cases. We reiterate what we 
said in those cases:

 

Even if the district court's order had been unlawful, 
the appellant could not simply choose to ignore its provisions. Failure to 
comply with a court order, notwithstanding the fact that it may be erroneous, 
may be considered to be a contempt of court. The remedy which was available to 
the appellant was to appeal the order, not to make himself the judge of the 
validity of the order by his inactivity.

 

Id. 
(citations omitted).

[T]he appellant's failure to comply with the juvenile 
court's order, notwithstanding the fact that the juvenile court lacked personal 
jurisdiction over the appellant to issue the order, could have constituted 
grounds for contempt of court had the appellant not appealed from the order. 
When a court issues an order which is outside the scope of its authority, the 
affected party's remedy is to appeal from the order, not to merely ignore 
it.

 

KT v. State (In Interest of BLM), 902 P.2d 1288, 1291 (Wyo. 1995) (citation 
omitted).

 

[¶8]      If Bickerstaff 
believed the consent decree was unlawful, she should have appealed from the 
decree rather than willfully disregarding it.

 

[¶9]      
Affirmed.