Case Title: SHANNON and VINCENT WILD V. KARENA D. ADRIAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
SHANNON and VINCENT WILD V. KARENA D. ADRIAN2007 WY 61155 P.3d 1036Case Number: 06-183Decided: 04/13/2007
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
SHANNON 
and VINCENT WILD,

 
 
Appellants

(Petitioners),

 
 
v.

 
 
KARENA D.ADRIAN,

 
 
Appellee

(Defendant).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The 
Honorable Thomas T.C. Campbell, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellants:

Sean W. 
Scoggin of Tiedeken & Scoggin, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Raymond 
D. Macchia and Juliana Hernandez of Macchia & Assoc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

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

 
 

KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1] 
     Bryan and Karena 
Adrian were divorced in 2002.  The 
district court awarded the parties joint legal custody and Mr. Adrian primary 
physical custody of their two children. The children lived with their father 
until 2005 when, due to his military service assignment, he placed them in the 
custody of Shannon and Vincent Wild.  
After Mr. Adrian died in 2006, the Wilds sought to intervene in the 
divorce proceeding to have the custody order modified to award them custody of 
the children.  Alternatively, they 
sought appointment as guardians of the children.  They appeal from the district court's 
denial of their petition.  We 
affirm.

            

ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The following 
issue is determinative of this appeal:  
Whether the district court properly denied the Wilds' petition to 
intervene in the divorce proceeding.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]  After the Adrians' divorce in 2002, Mr. Adrian and the children lived 
in Colorado.  At that time, he was a pilot with the 
Wyoming Air National Guard.  In 
2005, he was transferred to the Alaska Air National Guard.  On August 23, 2005, prior to the date of 
his actual transfer, Mr. Adrian executed a document entitled "Durable Special 
Power of Attorney" in which he appointed the Wilds as his "Attorneys-in-Fact" 
and the "Guardians/Loco Parentis" of his children.  After Mr. Adrian executed the document, 
the children lived with the Wilds in Colorado.  Mr. Adrian died suddenly on February 15, 
2006, while stationed in Texas.  
The Adrians' settlement agreement, which the 
district court approved and incorporated into the divorce decree, provided that 
in the event of either parent's death, custody of the children would vest 
automatically in the surviving parent.  
Thus, pursuant to the decree, custody of the children automatically 
vested in Mrs. Adrian upon Mr. Adrian's death.

 
 
[¶4] 
Immediately following Mr. Adrian's death, the Wilds sought and obtained an 
emergency order in Colorado district court granting them 
temporary custody of the children.  
However, the Colorado court concluded 
the Wilds' claims properly belonged in Wyoming where the divorce decree and the 
original custody determination were issued.  Therefore, the Colorado court's temporary custody order was limited to 
twenty days, enough time to allow the Wilds to apply for relief in Wyoming.  

 
 
[¶5]  The Wilds filed a petition in the 
LaramieCounty district court for an order allowing them to 
intervene in the Adrian divorce action.  They alleged the facts of the divorce,1 Mr. Adrian's act of placing the 
children in their physical custody, his subsequent death and the temporary 
custody order issued in Colorado.  The Wilds also filed a petition for an 
order modifying the custody order and granting them temporary custody of the 
Adrian children. 
 Alternatively, the Wilds sought in 
their petition to be appointed guardians of the children.  The district court granted the motion for 
temporary custody, finding that it was in the best interest of the children to 
remain in Colorado with the Wilds to finish the school 
year.  The district court indicated 
it would convene a hearing for consideration of whether custody in the Wilds 
should continue beyond the end of the school year and the other issues asserted 
in the petition.  

 
 
[¶6]  Several weeks later, the Wilds filed a 
petition for an emergency order in which they alleged that Mrs. Adrian had come 
to Colorado 
and taken the children from them in violation of the temporary custody 
order.  They sought an order 
requiring Mrs. Adrian to return physical custody of the children to them, to 
restrict her contact with the children and to hold her in contempt for violating 
a court order.  No order on the 
petition appears in the record filed with this Court; however, the parties agree 
and a later order suggests that the district court ordered Mrs. Adrian to return 
the children to the Wilds and she complied.  

 
 
[¶7]    On May 17, 2006, without 
having convened a hearing, the district court entered an order denying the 
Wilds' petitions to intervene, to modify custody and to hold Mrs. Adrian in 
contempt.  The district court found 
in pertinent part that the Wilds did not have standing to intervene in the 
Adrian divorce proceeding; Mrs. Adrian was the sole legal custodian of the 
children by operation of law and the divorce decree; and denial of the request 
to hold Mrs. Adrian in contempt was in the interest of justice. The Wilds 
appealed from the district court order.   

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶8]  The decision whether to grant or deny a 
motion to intervene as of right involves mixed questions of law and fact.  Platte County School Dist. No. 1 v. Basin 
Electric Power Coop., 638 P.2d 1276, 1279 (Wyo. 1982).  We review decisions involving questions 
of law de novo.  Seherr-Thoss v. Seherr-Thoss, 2006 WY 
111, ¶ 11, 141 P.3d 705, 712 (Wyo. 2006).  
We defer to the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly 
erroneous.  Maycock v. Maycock, 2001 WY 103, ¶ 11, 
33 P.3d 1114, 1117 (Wyo. 2001).  A 
finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the 
reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm 
conviction that a mistake has been committed.  Id.                   

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
The 
Right to Intervene

 
 
[¶9]  In their petition to intervene in the 
Adrian divorce action, the Wilds alleged that they had standing to request 
modification of the custody order pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-203(a) 
(LexisNexis 2005)2 because at the time they filed 
their petition they had acted as parents for the children and the children had 
been in their physical custody for at least the last six months.  On appeal, they claim they were entitled 
to intervene pursuant to W.R.C.P. 24, which provides as 
follows:

 
 
            
(a) Intervention of right. -- 
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an 
action:

            
            
(1) When a statute confers an unconditional right to intervene; 
or

            
            
(2) When the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or 
transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated 
that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede 
the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's 
interest is adequately represented by existing parties.  

            
(b)  Permissive intervention.  Upon timely 
application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an 
action:

                        
(1)  When a statute confers a 
conditional right to intervene; or

                        
(2)  When an applicant's 
claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. * 
* * In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the 
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of 
the original parties.

 
 
[¶10]   Perhaps recognizing that no Wyoming 
statute allowed them to intervene either conditionally or unconditionally in the 
Adrian divorce proceeding,3 the Wilds do not contend they were 
entitled to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(1) or (b)(1).  Rather, they claim they should have been 
allowed to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) or (b)(2).  For intervention as of right under 
subsection (a)(2), four conditions must be satisfied: 

 
 
First, 
the applicant must claim an interest related to the property or transaction 
which is the subject of the action.  
Second, the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the 
action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to 
protect that interest.  Third, there 
must be a showing that the applicant's interest will not be adequately 
represented by the existing parties.  
Fourth, the application for intervention must be timely.  An applicant who fails to meet any one 
of these conditions is not permitted to intervene as of right under W.R.C.P. 
24(a)(2).

            

Masinter 
v. Markstein, 2002 
WY 64, ¶ 7, 45 P.3d 237, 240 (Wyo. 2002).  

 
 
[¶11]  The interest claimed by an applicant 
seeking to intervene as of right must be a significant protectable 
interest.  Platte County School Dist., 638 P.2d  at 
1279.  A contingent interest will 
not suffice.  The question, 
therefore, is whether the Wilds had a significant protectable interest in 
custody of the Adrian children to allow them to intervene as 
of right.  We conclude they did not 
and the district court properly denied their motion to 
intervene.

 
 
[¶12]  In MBB v. ERW, 2004 WY 134, ¶ 12, 100 P.3d 415, 419 (Wyo. 2004), we held that only those persons specifically granted 
standing by statute could petition the court to modify a child custody 
order.  In that case, an unmarried 
mother gave birth to a son, J.S.  
From the time J.S. was seven months old until he was six years old, 
mother and J.S. lived with Michael Bisiar.  
Another child, J.B., was born during this time.  Genetic testing established father's 
paternity with respect to J.S.  
Mother and father stipulated that father would have primary custody of 
J.S. and the district court entered an order reflecting the parties' 
agreement.  Mr. Bisiar filed a 
petition for modification of the order seeking an order allowing him and J.B. 
visitation with J.S.   We 
said:

 
 
            
A parent's right to associate with and make decisions concerning the 
care, custody and control of his or her children is a fundamental right 
protected by the Wyoming and United States Constitutions.  The Wyoming legislature has created only two 
exceptions, other than in juvenile court matters, where non-parents may be 
granted visitation with children.  
Those exceptions are for grandparents and primary caregivers.  Because Bisiar and J.B. fall into 
neither of these categories, they did not have standing to bring an action to 
set aside the district court's custody order or to request that they be awarded 
visitation.  

 
 

Id., ¶ 14, 
100 P.3d  at 419.             

 
 
[¶13] As 
indicated, MBB involved a 
non-parent's attempt to obtain visitation with, not custody of, a 
child.  Despite this difference, our 
holding in MBB applies equally where 
a non-parent seeks to obtain custody of a child.  The Wyoming legislature has created no exception, 
other than a juvenile proceeding brought by the state, where non-parents may 
petition for custody of a child.  
Because § 20-2-204(a) allows only parents to petition to modify a court 
order regarding custody, the Wilds did not have standing to intervene as of 
right in the divorce proceeding to modify the original custody 
determination.

 
 
[¶14] 
Alternatively, the Wilds claim they were entitled to permissively intervene in 
the Wyoming divorce proceeding pursuant to Rule 
24(b)(2), which required that their claim have a question of law or fact in 
common with the Adrians' custody determination.  Clearly, the Wilds' claim and the 
original custody proceeding concerned a common question, i.e. custody of the 
Adrian 
children.  However, the Wilds' 
permissive intervention claim faced the same difficulties as their claim for 
intervention as of right  under 
Wyoming lawa 
non-parent does not have standing to request modification of a custody 
order.  We conclude the district 
court did not err in denying intervention under Rule 24(b)(2).           

 
 
[¶15]  In their petition to intervene, the 
Wilds alternatively sought to be appointed as guardians of the Adrian children pursuant 
to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-101, et seq. (LexisNexis 2005).  We find no statutory or judicial 
authority in Wyoming allowing a non-parent to intervene in 
a divorce proceeding for the purpose of being appointed as guardian for the 
children from the marriage.  We are 
not inclined to create such a right under these circumstances, where the 
petition to intervene sought to deprive Mrs. Adrian of her fundamental right to 
make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of her children.  "It is cardinal with us that the 
custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents . . . ."  KO v. LDH (In re MEO), 2006 WY 87, ¶ 21, 
138 P.3d 1145, 1152 (Wyo. 2006).  
Under the circumstances, we affirm the district court's order denying the 
Wilds' petition to intervene.  

 
 
[¶16]  The Wilds also claim that it was error 
for the district court to deny their petition to intervene without a 
hearing.  In support of their claim, 
they cite child custody and guardianship statutes which require a hearing before 
a court may determine custody or appoint a temporary guardian.  They cite no authority indicating that a 
hearing is required before a court may rule on a petition to intervene.  Our research indicates a court may deny 
a request for an evidentiary hearing when it is clear from the record that the 
petitioner is not entitled to intervene. Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic 
Ass'n, 806 F.2d 1285, 1289 (5th Cir. 
1987).  We conclude it was clear 
from the record that the Wilds were not entitled to intervene in the Adrian divorce proceeding. 
Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the Wilds' petition to 
intervene without a hearing.4

 
 
[¶17]  Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The Wilds 
incorrectly alleged the divorce decree gave Mr. Adrian "sole legal custody" of 
the children.  In fact, the decree 
awarded the parties joint legal custody and Mr. Adrian primary residential and 
physical custody.

 

2Section 
20-2-203(a) provides in relevant part:

 
 
  (a)  A court in this state which enters a 
custody order under W.S. 20-2-201 has continuing subject matter jurisdiction to 
enforce or modify the decree concerning the care, custody and visitation of the 
children as the circumstances of the parents and needs of the child require, 
subject to the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and 
Enforcement Act.  * * * 
*

 

3Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(a) 
(LexisNexis 2005) provides:

 
 
Either parent may petition to enforce or modify 
any court order regarding custody and visitation.

 
 
[Emphasis 
added]

 
 

4The parties 
presented other issues for determination by this Court.  Our resolution of the intervention issue 
makes consideration of those issues unnecessary.