Case Title: Zeitner v. Shank

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-12-0142

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2012-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
CODY T. ZEITNER v. JOSEPH GROSSMAYER SHANK2012 WY 157Case Number: S-12-0142Decided: 12/13/2012This opinion is subject to formal revision before final publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 
2012 
CODY T. 
ZEITNER,
 
Appellant
(Plaintiff),
 
v.
 
JOSEPH GROSSMAYER 
SHANK,
 
Appellee
(Defendant).
 
Appeal from the 
District Court of Laramie County
The Honorable Peter 
G. Arnold, Judge
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Pro se.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
No 
appearance.
 
Before KITE, 
C.J., and HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, and DAVIS, JJ.
 
BURKE, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]        
Appellant, Cody 
Zeitner, acting pro se, challenges the district court’s order 
denying her petition for modification of custody.  No 
transcript of the hearings on the petition was created, and 
Ms. Zeitner’s statement of the evidence was not approved by the 
district court pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.03.  
Further, Ms. Zeitner’s appellate brief fails to comply with 
several provisions of W.R.A.P. 7.01.  Based on the 
lack of a hearing transcript and the deficiencies in Ms. Zeitner’s 
brief, we affirm. 
 
ISSUES
 
[¶2]      
Ms. Zeitner 
(Mother) presents the following issues:
 
1.    
Did the trial Judge’s 
decision to admit and review evidence in September, 2011 but fail to acknowledge 
it in January, 2012, a full four months later, violate due process?
 
2.    
Did the trial Judge’s 
personal opinion about the Plaintiff and her marriage, specifically forming 
opinions based on no facts or evidence, violate the Wyoming Judicial Code of 
Conduct?
 
3.    
Maricopa County 
Superior Court in Arizona made over 30 rulings.  Did 
misinterpretations and failure to clarify the Arizona[] Court[’s] 2007 and 2008 
orders filed by the maternal grandparents result in an unfair 
ruling?  Were they even relevant to these 
proceedings?
 
4.    
[The trial court] 
faxed information to the Defendant that was used to discredit the Plaintiff on a 
Power of Attorney that was filed by mistake.  The correct and 
legal document was admitted into evidence.  Did [the court’s] 
ex parte communication with the Defendant violate the Wyoming Judicial Code of 
Conduct?
 
5.    
Plaintiff filed [the] 
petition based on very specific UCCJEA1 statutes as well as the application 
of Wyoming statutes on child abuse and abandonment that fell 
under UCCJEA guidelines.  Did [the court’s] 
failure to rule on the issues in the Plaintiff’s initial pleading result in an 
unfair ruling?
 
Appellee (Father) 
did not file a brief.
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]        
The parties were 
married in 1999 in Mesa, Arizona.  Two children were born into 
the marriage: BJS, born in 2000, and AZS, born in 2003. 
 Upon dissolution of the marriage in 2004, the parties agreed 
they would share joint legal custody of the children and that Mother would have 
primary residential custody.  Seven months after entry of the 
parties’ stipulated divorce decree, Mother filed a petition for sole custody of 
the children in the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County. 
 The court granted the petition.  Ten months 
later, Father petitioned for sole custody of the children. 
 The Arizona court granted Father’s petition by default and 
awarded sole custody of the children to him.  The children’s 
maternal grandparents, Patty and Richard Trembley, were subsequently 
granted visitation with the children.  In May, 2008, the court 
entered an order “granting grandmother’s request to allow the minor children, 
[AZS] and [BJS] to have contact with their natural mother [] 
during grandparenting time.”
 
[¶4]        
In late 2009, Father 
relinquished physical custody of AZS to the Trembleys 
after AZS was hospitalized for an appendectomy. 
 Ms. Trembley collected AZS from the 
hospital in Arizona and returned with him to her home in Buffalo, Wyoming. 
 Father executed a “Limited Non-Durable Power of Attorney” 
granting the Trembleys the power to exercise Father’s parental 
rights with respect to the care, custody, and control of AZS for a 
period of one year.  In 2010, the parties’ older child, 
BJS, also moved to Wyoming to live with the Trembleys.  

 
[¶5]        
In the summer of 
2011, Father requested that his children be returned to him. 
 When Mother learned of Father’s request, Mother moved the 
children to Cheyenne without Father’s knowledge or consent. 
 On July 19, 2011, Mother filed a petition in Laramie County 
District Court seeking custody of the children.  Mother’s 
petition asserted that Father had not contacted AZS 
during AZS’s residence in Wyoming, and that Father had not 
contacted BJS since April, 2011.
 
[¶6]        
On August 15, 2011, 
Father filed a “Petition to Modify Child Custody, Parenting Time and Child 
Support” in the Arizona Superior Court, seeking to terminate any visitation 
rights held by Mother and the children’s grandparents. 
 Father’s petition alleged that he travelled to Buffalo to 
retrieve his children, but that “[t]he grandparents refused to tell me where the 
children were and how to get a hold of them.”  Father asserted 
that “no parenting or Grandparenting time should be granted because 
the children are now missing and the Grandparents refuse to give me any 
information as to their whereabouts.”
 
[¶7]        
The Laramie County 
District Court determined that it had jurisdiction to review Mother’s petition 
seeking custody of the children and set the matter for hearing. 
 The hearing commenced on September 27, 2011, and for reasons 
that are unclear from the record, the hearing was concluded on January 17, 
2012.  No record of the proceedings was created. 
 The court issued its final ruling denying Mother’s petition 
via email on January 19, 2012.2  On 
May 16, 2012, the court issued an order memorializing its decision. 
 That order provides, in relevant part, as follows:
 
            
The Court’s initial thoughts and final email ruling are incorporated 
herein by this reference.  The Court FINDS and 
ORDERS that the evidence presented is sufficient to find a substantial 
and material change of circumstances, but that it is in the best interests of 
the children that Plaintiff’s Motion for Emergency Custody be 
denied.  Custody of the two children at issue in this case 
shall remain with [Father] pursuant to the September 23, 2005 Minute Entry of 
Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court Judge Connie Contes.  
The 2005 Minute Entry is a part of this file and incorporated 
herein.
 
            
The Court used the factors set forth in Wyoming Statute § 20-2-101(a) and 
§ 20-2-101(c) in determining the best interests of the two children.  
The facts relied upon by the Court in determining the best interests of 
the children include, but are not limited to, the following:
 
            
Behavior and Actions of the Parents
 
1.         W.S. 
§ 20-2-201(a)(iv) – Both parties have shown a willingness to disregard this 
Court’s orders and the Arizona Court’s orders.  However, 
[Father] expressly stated that he believes [Mother] should have a role in the 
children’s lives.  His statement appeared genuine.  
[Mother] did not convey the same sentiment to this Court about the 
importance of [Father’s] role in the children’s lives.
 
            
[Mother’s] current possession of the children was done in direct 
violation of the Arizona court Order.  [Father] requested that 
his children be returned to him in the summer of 2011.  At the 
time, the children’s maternal grandparents were caring for them in Buffalo, 
Wyoming with [Father’s] permission.  The children were only 
permitted to be in contact with their mother while in the company of the 
maternal grandparents.  When [Mother] learned of [Father’s] 
request to return the children, [Mother] violated the Arizona court order which 
prohibited her contact with the children outside the presence of their maternal 
grandparents and moved the children to Cheyenne while the grandparents remained 
in Buffalo, Wyoming and without the knowledge or consent of [Father].
 
            
[Mother] failed to give this Court any sincere indication that she was 
willing to relinquish care of the children to [Father] at specified 
times.
 
2.         W.S. 
§ 20-2-201(a)(c) – This Court considers spousal abuse as contrary to the 
children’s best interests. [Mother’s] new husband physically abused her at the 
beginning of their marriage and although there is very little evidence that the 
abuse took place in front of the children, the Court is concerned about the 
strength of [Mother’s] current relationship and the instability a likely break 
up of that marriage represents to the children’s future.  
There is no known history of domestic violence involving 
[Father].
 
3.         W.S. 
§ 20-2-201(a)(iv) – [Father] was awarded sole custody of the children in 
September of 2005.  [Mother] admitted to this Court that she 
gave up fighting for her kids at that point and did not contest [Father’s] 
custody.  By doing so, she demonstrated an unwillingness to 
accept all responsibilities of parenting and acquiesced in the appropriateness 
of [Father] raising the children without her involvement.  She 
failed to contact the children or lend any support to [Father] for a time period 
spanning from the end of 2005 through sometime in 2009.  
[Father] has never acquiesced in [Mother] being the custodian of their 
children and went to great lengths in Arizona to obtain, retain and regain 
physical custody of his children.
 
4.         W.S. 
§ 20-2-201(a)(iii) – The alleged forged affidavit and fabricated death threat 
called the credibility of both parties into question.  This 
Court admonished the parties for not being honest in regard to these issues and 
putting their spite for one another over the best interests of their 
children.
 
            
Situation with the Children
 
5.         
Both children lived the early years of their life in Phoenix, 
Arizona.  The younger child lived there for his first six 
years, and the older child for his first ten years.  It was 
not until 2009 that the younger child left Arizona for Wyoming for what was 
purported to [Father] as better medical care.  The older child 
left for Wyoming in 2010 to be with his brother and care for his ailing 
grandmother.  They have remained in Wyoming ever 
since.
 
            
The Court heard evidence of the younger child’s developmental 
disabilities and difficulties with school and social growth.  
Both parties, when the children were in their custody took steps to 
ensure that the younger child received special attention due to these 
disabilities.  Both parties presented evidence that the child 
was taken care of while in their custody.  There was no 
evidence materially distinguishing the development of the younger child while in 
the care of [Mother] or [Father].  The older child has 
flourished in Arizona and Wyoming.
 
6.         
This Court is hesitant to uproot the children yet again.  
However, the evidence showed that the children were developing similarly 
and had equal extended family support in both locations.  As 
such, the evidence failed to generate a geographic preference based on alleged 
academic and social development that would override the other factors mentioned 
herein.
 
[¶8]        
Mother filed her 
notice of appeal on May 22, 2012.  On June 27, Mother 
submitted a statement of evidence, which was prepared for purposes of this 
appeal pursuant to Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.03. 
 That rule provides as follows:
 
            
If no report of the evidence or proceedings at a hearing or trial was 
made, or if a transcript is unavailable, appellant may prepare a statement of 
the evidence or proceedings from the best available means including appellant’s 
recollection. The statement shall be filed and served on appellee 
within 35 days of the filing of the notice of appeal. Appellee may 
file and serve objections or propose amendments within 15 days after service. 
The trial court shall, within 10 days, enter its order settling and approving 
the statement of evidence, which shall be included by the clerk of the trial 
court in the record on appeal.
 
The record does not 
reflect that the district court settled or approved Mother’s statement of 
evidence. 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW
 
[¶9]        
Child custody 
decisions are within the sound discretion of the trial 
court. Testerman v. Testerman, 2008 WY 112, ¶ 
8, 193 P.3d 1141, 1144 (Wyo. 2008).
 
It has been our 
consistent principle that in custody matters, the welfare and needs of the 
children are to be given paramount consideration. The determination of the best 
interests of the child is a question for the trier of fact. We do 
not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse 
of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle. 

Id. 
(quoting Resor v. Resor, 987 P.2d 146, 148 (Wyo. 1999)).
 
DISCUSSION
 
[¶10]     
Appeals to this Court 
are governed by the Wyoming Rules of Appellate 
Procedure.  W.R.A.P. 1.02.  A 
party’s failure to comply with the appellate rules may be the basis “for such 
action as the appellate court deems appropriate, including but not limited to: 
refusal to consider the offending party’s contentions; assessment of costs; 
dismissal; and affirmance.”  W.R.A.P. 
1.03.  Mother’s brief in this case fails to comply with 
Wyoming Rule of Appellate Procedure 7.01 in a number of respects.  
In violation of W.R.A.P. 7.01(b), (c), (e)(2), and (f)(2), 
Mother’s brief does not contain a table of contents, a table of authorities, a 
statement of facts relevant to the issues presented, or a statement of the 
applicable standard of review.3  A more 
fundamental deficiency exists, however, as a result of Mother’s failure to 
present cogent argument or citation to pertinent legal authority, as required 
by W.R.A.P. 7.01(f)(1).  As we recently noted in 
an appeal brought by a pro se litigant, “blatant disregard of our rules 
of procedure cannot and will not be condoned.  When a brief 
fails to present a valid contention supported by cogent argument or pertinent 
authority, 'we consistently have refused to consider such cases, whether the 
brief is by a litigant pro se or is filed by counsel.’” 
 Call v. Town of Thayne, 2012 WY 149, ¶ 
15,       P.3d      , 
      (Wyo. 2012) 
(quoting Berg v. Torrington Livestock Cattle Co., 2012 WY 42, ¶ 14, 
272 P.3d 963, 966 (Wyo. 2012)).  The 
deficiencies in Mother’s brief constitute sufficient grounds to summarily affirm 
the district court’s decision.  The state of Mother’s brief, 
however, is not the only hindrance to our review in this case.
 
[¶11]     
In addition to 
Mother’s failure to present adequate argument or authority, our review is 
impeded by the lack of a transcript of the custody hearing or an adequate 
substitute in the form of an approved statement of the evidence.  
We have previously noted that our review is constrained when an appealed 
order is predicated on testimony and evidence adduced at an unrecorded 
hearing:
 
            
When this Court does not have a properly authenticated transcript before 
it, it must accept the trial court’s findings of fact upon which it bases any 
decisions regarding evidentiary issues. Capshaw v. 
Schieck, 2002 WY 54, ¶ 21, 44 P.3d 47, [54] (Wyo. 2002). 
The failure to provide a transcript does not necessarily require dismissal of an 
appeal, but our review is restricted to those allegations of error not requiring 
inspection of the transcript. Lacking a transcript, or a substitute for the 
transcript, the regularity of the trial court’s judgment and the competency of 
the evidence upon which that judgment is based must be 
presumed. Stadtfeld v. Stadtfeld, 
920 P.2d 662, 664 (Wyo. 1996); Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 
865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 1993); and see Wood v. Wood, 
865 P.2d 616 (Wyo. 1993) (dismissing appeal for lack of record, 
rather than affirming).         
 
Harshberger v. 
Harshberger, 2005 WY 99, ¶ 3, 
117 P.3d 1244, 1246-47 (Wyo. 2005) (quoting Burt v. Burt, 
2002 WY 127, ¶ 7, 53 P.3d 101, 103 (Wyo. 2002)).  
Under these circumstances, because we must accept the district court’s 
findings of fact, our review “is effectively limited to determining whether or 
not an error of law appears on the record.”  
Harshberger, ¶ 6, 117 P.3d  at 
1249.  We can discern no such error of law from our review of 
the record or from the arguments presented in Mother’s brief.  
For the sake of completeness, however, and in consideration of our policy 
to afford pro se litigants “some leniency from the 
stringent standards applied to formal pleadings drafted by attorneys,” we will 
proceed, briefly, to address Mother’s claims.  See Young v. 
State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295, 298 (Wyo. 
2002).
 
[¶12]     
In Mother’s first and 
second issues, she makes vague allegations of improper conduct and unfair 
treatment by the court at the hearings on her petition.  The 
essence of Mother’s argument is distilled in the following statement, which is 
representative of the degree of specificity provided throughout Mother’s 
brief:
 
[The trial judge] was 
hostile toward [Mother] and required [Father] to provide no evidence to support 
any allegations that he claimed.  In fact, [the trial judge’s] 
final thoughts and ruling were based entirely on very brief testimony from 
[Father] with no facts to support his testimony.
 
To the extent that 
Mother’s first two issues present legally cognizable claims, we are unable to 
review them due to the lack of a transcript of the proceedings below.

[¶13]     
In Mother’s third 
issue, she claims the district court erred in finding that she had violated the 
Arizona court order permitting visitation with her children only while in the 
company of her parents.  She contends that the Arizona court 
issued a 2005 order granting her visitation on every other weekend and one night 
during the week.  Mother, however, cites to a document that 
does not appear in the record.  As a result, we are unable to 
review Mother’s claim.
 
[¶14]     
In Mother’s fourth 
issue, she contends the district court improperly communicated with Father, 
ex parte, “to notify him of an inconsistency in a document.” 
 Mother does not identify the document, explain the 
significance of that document, or demonstrate how she was harmed by the alleged 
ex parte communication.  Further, we find no evidence 
of an improper contact in the record.  Accordingly, we find no 
merit in Mother’s claim.
 
[¶15]     
Finally, in Mother’s 
fifth issue, she claims the district court failed to rule on the issues 
presented in her petition.  Although Mother notes that she 
filed her petition “based on very specific UCCJEA statutes as well 
as the application of Wyoming statutes on child abuse and abandonment,” Mother’s 
petition contains no reference to any Wyoming statute or specific provision of 
the UCCJEA.  In her petition, Mother requested relief 
in the form of “an order awarding emergency custody” and “an other order or 
further relief as the Court may determine to be just and proper.” 
 The district court denied Mother’s request for 
relief.  Mother does not specify the issues on which the 
district court “failed to rule.”  Under this issue heading, 
Mother also claims that the district court erred in failing to appoint a 
guardian ad litem pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-2-312.  That statute, however, governs petitions for 
termination of parental rights.  Consequently, it has no 
applicability to this case.  We find no merit in Mother’s 
claim. 
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶16]     
As the proponent of 
this appeal, it was Mother’s burden to provide a complete record for our review. 
 Steele v. Steele, 2005 WY 33, ¶ 17, 
108 P.3d 844, 851 (Wyo. 2005).  Mother failed to 
satisfy this obligation.  Consequently, we must presume the 
regularity of the district court’s judgment and the competency of the evidence 
upon which that judgment was 
based.  Harshberger, ¶ 3, 
117 P.3d  at 1246.  Under the limited scope of 
review allowed in the absence of a hearing transcript in this case, which 
permits us to address only those errors of law appearing in the record, we find 
no such error. Additionally, as noted above, Mother’s brief fails to adhere to 
the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, most notably in its lack of cogent 
argument or pertinent legal authority.  In light of these 
defects, we affirm the district court’s order denying Mother’s petition for 
modification of custody. 
 
[¶17]     
FOOTNOTES
1“UCCJEA” 
refers to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement 
Act.  Wyoming’s version of the UCCJEA is codified 
at Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-5-201 through 20-5-502 (LexisNexis 2011).
2The court’s 
email ruling is not included in the record.
3We note 
that the inclusion of a table of contents and a table of authorities “with page 
references,” as required by W.R.A.P. 7.01(b) and (c), was made 
impossible due to a lack of page numbers in Mother’s 
brief.