Case Title: Wilcox-Elliott v. Wilcox

Citation: 

Docket Number: 96-92

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wilcox-Elliott v. Wilcox1996 WY 136924 P.2d 419Case Number: 96-92Decided: 10/09/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
Linda 
L. WILCOX-ELLIOTT,

Appellant 
(Plaintiff/Respondent),

v.

Robert Alvin 
WILCOX,

 Appellee 
(Defendant/Petitioner).

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

Linda L. 
Elliott, pro se.

Richard R. 
Jamieson, Casper, for Appellee 
(Defendant/Petitioner).

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

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Linda 
Wilcox-Elliott (the mother) appeals from the order in favor of Appellee Robert 
Wilcox (the father) which modified the parties' divorce decree with respect to 
the custody of their children.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

ISSUES

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

ISSUE NUMBER 
ONE

Did the trial court err 
as a matter of law in finding that a material change in circumstances had 
occurred since the entry of the decree of divorce between the 
parties?

ISSUE NUMBER 
TWO

Did the trial court abuse 
its discretion in failing to consider the best interests of the minor 
children?

ISSUE NUMBER 
THREE

Did the trial court err 
in failing to consider the past history of the appellee in failing to consider 
the best interests of his children by contributing to their financial and 
emotional support?

ISSUE NUMBER 
FOUR

Did the trial court err 
in failing to apply the criteria set forth by this Court in considering the 
preference of the children?

ISSUE NUMBER 
FIVE

Did the trial court's 
reliance on the report of the guardian ad litem deny appellant her rights of due 
process of law?

FACTS

[¶4]      The mother and 
the father were granted a divorce on August 12, 1992. The mother was awarded 
primary custody of the parties' two minor children, and the father was given 
reasonable visitation rights.

[¶5]      At the time of 
the divorce, the parties both resided in Casper. After the divorce decree was 
entered, the mother married and moved to Colorado. The relationship between the 
mother and her husband (Elliott) became abusive, and the mother and Elliott 
subsequently separated. Shortly thereafter, the mother began living with another 
man (Raza). She lived with Raza for a short period of time and then moved back 
and forth between Elliott and Raza.

[¶6]      The father filed 
a petition to have the divorce decree modified so that he would have primary 
custody of the children. A guardian ad litem (the guardian) was appointed 
to represent the children's interests in the proceeding.

[¶7]      After considering 
the record evidence and twice interviewing the children, who communicated their 
desire to live with their father, the guardian determined that a material change 
in circumstances had occurred and recommended to the district court that primary 
custody be given to the father. The district court followed the guardian's 
recommendations and modified the divorce decree accordingly. The mother appeals 
to this Court.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶8]      The district 
court exercises broad discretion in making decisions which pertain to child 
custody. Mulkey-Yelverton v. Blevins, 884 P.2d 41, 43 (Wyo. 
1994).

This court will not 
interfere with the decision of the trial court in child custody questions 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. . . 
.

Deen v. Deen, 
774 P.2d 621, 622 (Wyo. 1989).

DISCUSSION

A. Material 
Change in Circumstances

[¶9]      Most of the 
mother's issues boil down to the question of whether the district court abused 
its discretion when it modified the child custody provision in the divorce 
decree. The mother claims that the father did not establish that a material 
change in circumstances had occurred since the divorce decree was entered. The 
father argues that sufficient evidence supported the 
material-change-in-circumstances finding.

[¶10]   The party who is seeking a 
modification of a divorce decree as it pertains to child custody bears the 
burden of showing that a substantial or material change in circumstances which 
affects the child's welfare occurred subsequent to the entry of the initial 
decree, that the change warrants modification of the decree, and that the 
modification will be in the child's best interests. DJG v. MAP, 883 P.2d 946, 
947 (Wyo. 1994); Mulkey-Yelverton, 884 P.2d  at 43-44. A child's unequivocal 
preference to live with a particular parent is a factor which must be 
considered, but such a preference is not conclusive. Mulkey-Yelverton, 884 P.2d  
at 44. In order to decide whether a showing of material or substantial change in 
circumstances has been made, we examine the record to determine whether the 
district court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that such a change 
occurred. DJG, 883 P.2d  at 947.

[¶11]   A lot of changes have occurred in 
both parties' lives since the initial decree was entered in 1992. The mother 
continues to have relationships with men which are detrimental to her children's 
well-being. The record indicates that, before the mother married Elliott, she 
was involved with a man who exhibited nudity in the home and engaged in abnormal 
sexual practices. Elliott, the man with whom she has reconciled and to whom she 
is currently married, has been abusive to her in the children's presence and has 
a criminal record. Additionally, Elliott's son showed the children pornographic 
movies.

[¶12]   Raza testified at the hearing that 
the mother has a violent temper and that she verbally and physically attacked 
the children. He said that he heard the mother call the children vulgar names 
and that he saw her throw things when she got upset with the children. The 
children confirmed this testimony in their interview with the 
guardian.

[¶13]   Conversely, the record evidence 
indicates that the father's situation has improved. Although at the time of the 
divorce he was unemployed, was living at a rescue mission, and failed to provide 
child support for the children, he has since married a woman whom the children 
are very fond of, and he has a job. He and his wife bought a home and are able 
to provide for the children. Although the father was abusive toward his stepson 
several years ago, he has been attending counseling on a regular basis for the 
past few years, and his counselor testified that the father has made tremendous 
progress and has dealt with his anger problem in therapy.

[¶14]   The guardian recommended that the 
children's custody be changed to the father. The guardian was concerned with the 
mother's erratic life style as well as with her temper. The guardian reported 
that, both times the children were interviewed, they expressed their desire to 
live with their father. The guardian believed that the children were telling him 
the truth and that their stated preferences were not coerced in any way. He 
reported that the children seemed to be doing well under their father's care and 
that the father's home was a more stable environment for the 
children.

[¶15]   The record reveals an extreme 
decrease of stability in the mother's life compared to a significant increase of 
stability in the father's life. Sufficient evidence supported the determination 
that a substantial or material change in circumstances had occurred and that it 
was in the children's best interest for them to live with their father. The 
district court's decision to modify the divorce decree with regard to the 
children's custody, therefore, was reasonable. 

B. Due 
Process

[¶16]   The mother claims that she was 
denied her due process right when the district court relied upon the guardian's 
report. We agree that a parent is entitled to have due process in custody 
matters, which includes adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Goss v. 
Goss, 780 P.2d 306, 310 (Wyo. 1989); Hall v. Hall, 708 P.2d 416, 420-21 (Wyo. 
1985); Tanner v. Tanner, 482 P.2d 443, 445 (Wyo. 1971). Those requirements were 
met in this case. A hearing was conducted, and the mother was present at that 
hearing.

[¶17]   The mother asserts, however, that 
she was not able to cross-examine the guardian with regard to some of his 
findings. The mother's attorney had an opportunity to cross-examine the guardian 
and, in fact, asked a question on cross-examination. Although the guardian did 
not have his report finalized at the time of the hearing, he gave the court a 
verbal summary of his impressions. The mother's attorney did not object to this 
procedure, nor did he request that a continuance be granted until the report 
could be reduced to written form. We conclude that the district court did not 
deprive the mother of her due process right by relying on the guardian's 
report.

CONCLUSION

[¶18]   We hold that the district court did 
not abuse its discretion when it modified the child custody portion of the 
parties' divorce decree.

[¶19]   Affirmed.