Case Title: Dowdy v. Dowdy

Citation: 

Docket Number: 93-83

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1993-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
Dowdy v. Dowdy1993 WY 139864 P.2d 439Case Number: 93-83Decided: 11/04/1993Supreme Court of Wyoming
Carolyn Jean DOWDY, 

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

Nicky Allen DOWDY, 

Appellee 
(Defendant).

Appeal from The District 
Court, Natrona County, Dan Spangler, J.

Fred R. Dollison 
of Northern Wyoming Law Associates, Sheridan, for appellant.

Kenneth R. 
Marken, Casper, for appellee.

Before MACY, 
C.J., THOMAS, GOLDEN and TAYLOR, JJ., and BROWN, J. (Retired).

MACY, Chief 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Carolyn 
Dowdy (the mother) challenges the district court's decree which separated the 
parties' three minor children by giving primary custody of the younger son to 
Appellee Nicky Dowdy (the father) and set the father's child support obligation 
at $300 per month.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      The mother 
presents the following issues for our review:

I.

     The Trial Court abused 
its discretion in splitting the minor children of the parties by ordering that 
one child[,] Jason Lee Dowdy, would reside with Appellee Nicky Allen 
Dowdy.

II.

     The Trial Court 
committed reversible error in ordering child support in an amount of $300 per 
month from Nicky Allen Dowdy to Carolyn Jean Dowdy.

[¶4]      The mother and 
the father both sought temporary and permanent custody of their daughter and two 
sons in their divorce proceedings. After hearing the parties' motions, the 
district court granted temporary custody of the daughter and older son to the 
mother and temporary custody of the younger son to the father.

[¶5]      At the conclusion 
of the trial on the divorce action, the district court granted a divorce to the 
mother, made the temporary custody arrangement permanent, ordered the father to 
make child support payments of $300 per month, and divided the marital property. 
The mother appeals from the district court's rulings on the children's custody 
and the amount of the child support payments.

A. 
Custody

[¶6]      The mother 
asserts that she should have been awarded custody of all three children and that 
the district court erred by separating the younger son from his sister and older 
brother. In reviewing a district court's decision regarding child custody, we 
defer to the discretion of the district court

"unless there is a 
procedural error or unless there is shown to be a clear abuse of discretion. A 
court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the 
bounds of reason under the circumstances, as is said to mean an error of law 
committed by the court under the circumstances." Deen v. Deen, 774 P.2d 621, 622 
(Wyo. 1989).

Uhls v. Uhls, 
794 P.2d 894, 896 (Wyo. 1990).

[¶7]      The best 
interests of the children is the primary consideration when parental custody 
matters are being determined. Fanning v. Fanning, 717 P.2d 346, 352 (Wyo. 1986). 
"[T]he `goal to be achieved is a reasonable balance of the rights and affections 
of each of the parents, with paramount consideration being given to the welfare 
and needs of the children.'" Love v. Love, 851 P.2d 1283, 1287 (Wyo. 1993) 
(quoting Leitner v. Lonabaugh, 402 P.2d 713, 720 (Wyo. 1965)). See also Wyo. 
Stat. § 20-2-113(a) (Supp. 1992).1

[¶8]      The general rule 
across the country is that separating siblings from each other through custody 
awards to different parents is not preferred. See, e.g., Craig v. McBride, 639 P.2d 303 (Alaska 1982); Pennington v. Pennington, 711 P.2d 254 (Utah 1985); and 
In re Marriage of Moe, 66 Or. App. 947, 676 P.2d 336 (1984). Keeping siblings 
together in the same household is generally considered to be the better 
practice. However, the effect of separating siblings from each other is just one 
of several factors courts consider in determining the primary issue - the best 
interests of the children. See Jay M. Zitter, Annotation, Child Custody: 
Separating Children by Custody Awards to Different Parents - Post-1975 Cases, 67 
A.L.R. 4th 354, § 2[a] (1989). See also In re Marriage of Barnthouse, 765 P.2d 610 (Colo.Ct.App. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1021, 109 S. Ct. 1747, 104 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1989).

[¶9]      Taking the 
relevant facts into account, we cannot say that the district court abused its 
discretion by awarding primary custody of the younger son to the father and 
granting primary custody of the other two children to the mother. While some 
conflict in the evidence was present concerning the father's parenting skills, 
evidence existed showing that the father was a fit parent and capable of 
adequately caring for the younger son.

[¶10]   The younger son was eleven years of 
age at the time the divorce decree was entered, and he stated that he preferred 
to live with his father. "The preference of a child of sufficient age and 
maturity is a factor to be considered by a court in ascertaining what is in the 
child's best interests." Yates v. Yates, 702 P.2d 1252, 1256 (Wyo. 1985), quoted 
in Roberts v. Vilos, 776 P.2d 216, 218 (Wyo. 1989).

[¶11]   Additionally, the evidence showed 
that antagonism existed between the younger son and the other two children prior 
to the separation. Antagonism between siblings is another factor which a court 
may consider in deciding whether to separate siblings from each other. In re 
Marriage of Slavenas, 139 Ill. App.3d 581, 93 Ill.Dec. 914, 918, 487 N.E.2d 739, 
743 (1985).

[¶12]   The evidence also showed that, 
during the temporary custody period while the father had primary custody of the 
younger son, the younger son's performance and behavior in school improved over 
what it had been prior to the parties' separation. See Hayden v. Hayden, 588 S.W.2d 165 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979). Finally, the parents live about one hundred 
yards apart. As a consequence, the children see each other frequently. See 
D.S.P. v. R.E.P., 800 S.W.2d 766 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) (there are fewer concerns 
with separating siblings if the children see each other often). The district 
court did not abuse its discretion in making the custody awards.

B. Child 
Support

[¶13]   We review the district court's 
decisions on child support matters under the abuse-of-discretion standard. The 
district court has broad discretion in determining the proper amount of support 
to be awarded. Roberts v. Roberts, 816 P.2d 1293, 1296 (Wyo. 1991).

[¶14]   The Legislature created guidelines 
to be used in establishing the proper child support amounts. Wyo. Stat. § 
20-6-304 (Supp. 1992).2 These guidelines take the number of 
children and the obligor's monthly net income into consideration. Id. The child 
support guidelines "shall be rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of 
child support to be awarded in any proceeding to establish or modify temporary 
or permanent child support amounts." Wyo. Stat. § 20-6-302(a) (Supp. 1992).3 However, the court may deviate from 
the guidelines by looking to a comprehensive list of factors specified in Wyo. 
Stat. § 20-6-302(b) (Supp. 1992).4 Hasty v. Hasty, 828 P.2d 94, 98-99 
(Wyo. 1992); Roberts, 816 P.2d  at 1295-96.

[¶15]   Neither the divorce decree nor the 
record specifies how the district court determined that $300 per month was the 
proper amount of child support. The evidence regarding the father's monthly net 
income was disputed. The amount of support awarded indicates that the district 
court accepted the lower income figure presented by the father. The district 
court, as the finder of fact, had discretion to decide between the conflicting 
evidence on the father's net income.

[¶16]   Since custody of the younger son 
was given to the father and custody of the daughter and older son was given to 
the mother, the district court, presumably, determined the relative child 
support responsibilities of each parent and offset the father's greater 
liability by the lesser amount the mother would be required to pay.5 Even taking into account the 
offset, we note that the amount of child support awarded to the mother was 
$25.81 less than that provided for by the child support guidelines. When the 
district court deviates from the child support guidelines in determining the 
proper amount for child support, it is required to issue written or specific 
findings on the record to account for the deviation. Section 20-6-302(b). Under 
the facts of this case, we conclude that the slight deviation from the 
guidelines without issuance of the proper findings does not require us to 
reverse and remand this case to the district court. Morehead v. Morehead, 811 P.2d 721, 723-24 n. 1 (Wyo. 1991). However, we emphasize that the trial courts 
should be careful to comply with the statutory requirements when they are 
issuing child support decisions.

[¶17]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 Amended by 1993 Wyo. 
Sess. Laws ch. 159, § 1 and ch. 218, § 1 effective July 1, 1993.

2 Amended by 1993 Wyo. 
Sess. Laws ch. 184, § 1 effective March 5, 1993.

3 See supra note 
2.

4 See supra note 
2.

5 The father's monthly net 
income was $1,491.98 (monthly take-home pay of $1,581.14 less monthly payment of 
$89.16 for dependent health insurance). Under the child support guidelines, his 
child support obligation for the two children in the mother's care was $417.75. 
The mother's monthly net income was $540.85 (monthly take-home pay of $475.85 
plus monthly heat assistance of $65). Pursuant to the child support guidelines, 
her child support obligation for the one child in the father's care was $91.94. 
If the father's greater support obligation were offset by the mother's lesser 
obligation, the father would owe monthly child support payments of $325.81 to 
the mother.