Case Title: MELISSA L. GRAY V. JOHN W. PAVEY, a/k/a JOHNNY W. PAVEY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 06-277

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
MELISSA L. GRAY V. JOHN W. PAVEY, a/k/a JOHNNY W. PAVEY2007 WY 84158 P.3d 667Case Number: 06-277Decided: 05/21/2007
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
MELISSA L. 
GRAY,

 
 
Appellant

(Respondent),

 
 
v.

 
 
JOHN W. PAVEY, a/k/a JOHNNY W. 
PAVEY,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner).

 
 
Appeal from theDistrictCourtofConverseCounty

The Honorable John C. 
Brooks, Judge

 
 
Representing Appellant:

 
 
Cole N. 
Sherard, Wheatland, 
Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellee:

 
 
James A. 
Hardee, Douglas, Wyoming.                                        

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Melissa Gray 
("Mother") appeals from an order modifying child custody.  She contends that the change in custody 
is contrary to her daughter's best interests.  We affirm.

 

 
 

[¶2]      The issue for review is 
whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding custody of the 
parties' minor child ("C.G.") to her father, John Pavey 
("Father").

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Mother and Father 
are the parents of C.G., born on November 5, 1998.  In May 1999, a paternity order was 
entered adjudicating John Pavey as the father of the child and granting physical 
custody to Mother.  At the time the 
paternity order was entered, Father resided in Casper, Wyoming, and 
Mother resided in Douglas, 
Wyoming.  Father was ordered to pay child support 
and provide medical insurance.  A 
visitation schedule was not established because Father failed to appear for the 
hearing.  Approximately three years 
later, the parties entered into a stipulated order establishing a visitation 
schedule for Father and modifying the amount of child 
support.

 
 
[¶4]      On March 14, 
2006, C.G. was taken into protective custody by the Department of Family 
Services due to allegations of abuse and neglect by Mother and her 
boyfriend.  After being removed from 
her Mother's home, the Department of Family Services became C.G.'s legal 
guardian.  She was then placed with 
Father by the Department of Family Services.   

 
 
[¶5]      In response to 
these events, Father filed a petition for modification of custody, visitation, 
and support.  The petition alleged 
that a material change in circumstances occurred because Mother endangered the 
health, safety, and welfare of C.G.  
Additionally, Father concurrently filed a motion for temporary custody in 
anticipation that C.G. would be released from protective custody before the 
petition for modification could be heard.  
The district court granted Father's motion for temporary custody on March 
22, 2006.  

 
 
[¶6]      In response to 
Father's petition for modification of custody, Mother affirmatively asserted 
that Father had a significant criminal history and that he suffers from a mental 
condition making him unfit to be the primary custodian.  A hearing on the matter was scheduled 
for May 16, 2006.  Mother requested 
a continuance to allow time for discovery.  
Prior to the hearing on the petition for modification, Father relocated 
to Gillette, Wyoming, to pursue an employment 
opportunity.  Mother continued to 
reside in Douglas.  The hearing was eventually held on 
August 29, 2006.  

[¶7]      After considering 
the evidence, the district court entered its Order For Modification of Custody, 
Visitation and Child Support on September 21, 2006, awarding custody to 
Father.  The district court found 
that there "has been a significant change in circumstances of the parties" and 
that "it is in the best interest of the minor child that she be provided a 
stable environment which can meet her emotional, developmental and educational 
needs."  This appeal followed.    

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 

[¶8]      We 
review a district court's order on a petition to modify custody, visitation, and 
child support for an abuse of discretion.  
Selvey v. 
Selvey, 
2004 WY 166, ¶ 15, 102 P.3d 210, 214 (Wyo. 2004).    

 
 
We will not interfere 
with the district court's decision regarding modification of custody absent a 
procedural error or a clear abuse of discretion.  In determining whether the district 
court has abused its discretion, we must decide whether it could reasonably 
conclude as it did.  Judicial 
discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from 
objective criteria; it means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is 
right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or 
capriciously.  

 Id.  (internal citations and quotation marks 
omitted).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶9]      The statutory provision 
governing a change in custody provides in pertinent part that: 

 
 
      (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).

 
 

Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2005).  
Father, as the party seeking modification of child custody, bore "the 
burden of demonstrating that:  (1) a 
material and substantial change of circumstances affecting the child's 
welfare has occurred since the entry of the initial [custody 
determination], and (2) a modification is in the child's best interests."  Selvey, ¶ 16, 102 P.3d  at 214 (citing Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 150 
(Wyo. 1998); 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2003)).

 
 

[¶10]   Mother challenges the 
district court's order modifying custody contending that it abused its 
discretion.  She does not 
specifically contest the finding of a material change in circumstances.  Instead, Mother focuses on the second 
step in custody determinations, and contends that awarding custody to Father is 
contrary to the child's best interests.  

 
 

[¶11]   In support of her 
position, Mother asserts that the district court failed to consider evidence 
that she successfully completed a drug treatment program, has abstained from 
drugs and alcohol, and has successfully satisfied the objectives established in 
the case plan developed by the Department of Family Services.  In addition, she claims that her bond 
with the child is much closer than Father's because she had custody for the 
first seven years of her daughter's life and Father had only sporadic parental 
involvement.  Additionally, she 
notes that at the time of hearing, Father was in arrears in child support in the 
amount of $1,746.81, and that his criminal history is more significant than her 
own.  She further contends that 
uprooting her daughter from her hometown of Douglas is contrary to the child's 
best interests because she has family and friends in Douglas, and because she was receiving therapy in school 
for behavioral issues and a learning disability.  

 
 

[¶12]   We agree with Mother that 
favorable testimony was presented to the district court on her behalf.  Our standard of review, however, does 
not permit us to look at the evidence in the light most favorable to 
Mother.  Instead, "[o]ur review entails 
evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's 
decision, and we afford to the prevailing party every favorable inference while 
omitting any consideration of evidence presented by the unsuccessful 
party."  Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, ¶ 10, 22 P.3d 861, 865 (Wyo. 2001).  

 
 

[¶13]   When viewed in this 
light, we find that sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate a material 
change in circumstances and that an award of primary custody to Father was in 
the best interests of the child.  See, e.g., Rogers  v. Rogers , 973 P.2d 1118, 1123 ( Wyo. 1999).  Testimony at the hearing 
established that Father and his wife could provide a more stable home for C.G. 
 The evidence indicated that Father 
had been free of drugs and alcohol for two years and that his wife had never 
used illegal drugs.  C.G.'s 
counselor testified that the child has stabilized while residing with her 
father.  In addition, the counselor 
testified that C.G. has a bond with Father and she is able to adapt to changing 
circumstances.  Further testimony 
indicated that the services C.G. was receiving in school in Douglas were also available to her in Gillette, that C.G. 
has made new friends in Gillette, and that she is adjusting very well to her new 
living arrangement.  

 
 

[¶14]   The district court was 
presented with the difficult task of determining which custodial arrangement was 
in the best interests of C.G.  It 
heard evidence favorable and unfavorable to both parents.  After considering all of the evidence 
before it, the district court determined that Father is better able to provide 
an 
environment which can meet C.G.'s emotional, developmental, and educational 
needs.  Sufficient evidence exists in the record 
to support this decision.  As a 
result, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in this 
matter.

 
 

[¶15]   Affirmed.