Case Title: ANNE V. CARROLL V. WILLIAM JOHN LAW

Citation: 

Docket Number: 04-23

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
ANNE V. CARROLL V. WILLIAM JOHN LAW2005 WY 44109 P.3d 544Case Number: 04-23Decided: 04/13/2005
 
 
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
                                                                                                                                   

 
 
 
 
ANNE V. 
CARROLL,

 
 
Appellant

(Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
WILLIAM 
JOHN LAW,

 
 
Appellee

(Defendant).

 
 

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

 
 
            
Ronald G. Pretty, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

 
 
            
Mary T. Parsons of Parsons Law Offices, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and BRACKLEY, 
D.J.

 
 

             
VOIGT, Justice.

 

 
 
[¶1]      The district 
court modified the parties' visitation schedule.  The appellant (Mother) asserts that the 
modification was erroneous inasmuch as the particular visitation ordered was not 
requested by either party, was not in the child's best interests, and was not 
supported by substantial evidence.  
Mother also argues that her due process rights were violated when the 
district court disallowed witness testimony and limited the parties' 
arguments.  We 
affirm.

 
 

 
 
[¶2]      Mother presents 
two issues for our review:

 
 
1.         
Did the court err when it modified the visitation?

 
 
2.         
Was Mother's right to due process violated?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Mother and the 
appellee (Father) were married in Virginia in 1994.  When the parties were divorced in 1998, 
Mother was awarded custody of their only child.  Although visitation remained largely 
undefined, Mother and Father agreed that the child would spend every 
Thanksgiving with Father and every Christmas with Mother.  After their divorce, Mother and Father 
reconciled and began living together again.  In 2000, Mother, Father, and the child 
moved to Cheyenne after Mother accepted a job at F.E. 
Warren Air Force Base.

 
 
[¶4]      In April of 2002, 
after Father was convicted of child endangerment for slapping the child, Mother 
and Father separated and Mother filed a Motion to Modify Decree of Divorce as to 
Visitation.  In this motion, Mother 
requested that Father's visitation with the child be supervised.  Father responded with his own Petition 
for Modification of Decree of Divorce as to Visitation, wherein he requested 
that the district court define the parties' visitation and custody rights.  On December 12, 2002, following a 
hearing, the district court awarded Father one week of supervised visitation 
during Christmas break.  The 
district court concluded that "[m]ore definitive visitation cannot be ordered 
during the time allotted for this hearing . . .."

 
 
[¶5]      At the time of 
the December 2002 hearing, Father was living with his sister and her husband in 
Pennsylvania.  Although Father made all the 
arrangements necessary to exercise his Christmas visitation, Mother refused to 
allow the child to go to Pennsylvania.  Additionally, Mother notified the clerk 
of district court that she would be moving from Wyoming, but did not indicate to where she 
would be relocating.  In response to 
Mother's actions, Father filed two motions in February of 2003:  (1) a Motion for Order to Show Cause; 
Motion for Injunction, and Motion to Set Hearing, and (2) a Motion to Set 
Hearing on All Pending Matters.  The 
first motion, heard on May 5, 2003, resulted in Mother being held in contempt of 
court and ordered to pay the transportation costs for a seven-day summer visit 
between the child and Father.  The 
second motion was heard on July 21, 2003, and on November 3, 2003, the district 
court issued an Order Modifying Child Support and Visitation.  With regard to visitation, the order 
awarded Mother Thanksgiving break in 2003 and odd years thereafter, and Father 
Christmas break in 2003 and odd years thereafter.  Unhappy that Father was awarded 
visitation every other Christmas break, Mother appealed from the 
order.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶6]                                          
"Custody, visitation, child support, and alimony are all committed to the 
sound discretion of the district court.  
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.'  
Fink [v. Fink], 685 P.2d [34,] 36 
[(Wyo.1984)]."

 
 

Reavis 
v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo.1998) (some citations omitted).  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.  Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, ¶ 9, 22 P.3d 861, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2001); Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151 
(Wyo.1998).

 
 
"Our 
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.  We cannot 
sustain findings of fact not supported by the evidence, contrary to the 
evidence, or against the great weight of the evidence.  Similarly, an abuse of discretion is 
present when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored.  RDS v. GEMN, 9 P.3d 984, 986 
(Wyo.2000)."

 
 

Pace, at ¶ 
10.

 
 

Produit 
v. Produit, 2001 
WY 123, ¶ 9, 35 P.3d 1240, 1242-43 (Wyo. 2001).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶7]      At the outset, we 
note that our review of this case is severely limited by Mother's failure to 
provide a transcript of any of the hearings that occurred below.  Relying on W.R.A.P. 3.03,1 Mother created a statement of the 
evidence and filed it with the district court.  However, Father objected and the 
district court refused to adopt Mother's statement of the evidence.2

 
 
[¶8]      On appeal, Mother 
makes two arguments.  First, she 
claims that the district court abused its discretion when it awarded Father 
visitation every other Christmas when neither party specifically requested that 
visitation schedule and when "[t]here was no evidence in the record that 
supported that change as being in the best interests and welfare of the child . 
. .."  In her second argument, she 
claims that she was denied due process because "[i]n both hearings, the Judge 
denied any witness testimony and limited arguments before the Court . . 
.."

 
 
[¶9]      Unfortunately, 
without a transcript of the hearings, we have no way of knowing what evidence 
was presented and we are significantly limited in our ability to assess whether 
the district court abused its discretion with respect to either of Mother's 
appellate arguments.  We have said 
that the

 
 
appellant 
has the burden of providing this Court a complete record.  Erhart v. Evans, 2001 WY 79, ¶ 
18, 30 P.3d 542, 547 (Wyo.2001); Wood v. Wood, 865 P.2d 616, 617 
(Wyo.1993).  Without a sufficient 
record, we must ""accept the trial court's findings as being the only basis 
for deciding the issues which pertain to the evidence.'"'"  Smith v. Smith, 2003 WY 87, ¶ 11, 
72 P.3d 1158, 1161 (Wyo.2003) (quoting Williams v. Dietz, 999 P.2d 642, 645 (Wyo.2000) and Weiss v. Pedersen, 933 P.2d 495, 498 (Wyo.1997), 
abrogated on other grounds by White v. Allen, 2003 WY 39, 65 P.3d 395 
(Wyo.2003)).  "In the absence of 
anything to refute them, we will sustain the trial court's findings, and we 
assume that the evidence presented was sufficient to support those 
findings."  Willowbrook Ranch, 
Inc. v. Nugget Exploration, Inc., 896 P.2d 769, 771-72 (Wyo.1995).  Where a proper record is not provided, 
an appeal may be dismissed or review may be limited to those issues not 
requiring inspection of the record.  
Stadtfeld v. Stadtfeld, 920 P.2d 662, 664 
(Wyo.1996).

 
 

Vernier 
v. Vernier, 2004 
WY 77, ¶ 5, 92 P.3d 825, 827 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
[¶10]   The district court awarded Father 
supervised visitation on alternating Christmas and Thanksgiving holidays.  Giving every favorable inference to 
Father, as the prevailing party, and assuming the evidence presented was 
sufficient to support the district court's findings, we find nothing in the 
record before us demonstrating that the ordered visitation falls outside the 
bounds of reason or is an error of law.  
The same is true regarding Mother's due process claims.  Mother received adequate notice of, and 
was present at, two hearings wherein visitation was addressed.  Although Mother now claims that she was 
not allowed to call witnesses or adequately present her arguments, without 
transcripts of the hearings we have no way of knowing what, if any, witnesses 
were present and/or called, what evidence was presented, or what arguments were 
made.  Mother has not met her burden 
of presenting an adequate record, and based on our review of the limited record 
provided, we cannot say that the district court abused its 
discretion.

 
 

 
 
[¶11]   Mother claims that the district 
court abused its discretion when it:  
(1) modified the terms of the parties' divorce decree to allow Father 
visitation every other Christmas break, and (2) limited arguments and did not 
allow her to call witnesses at the hearings.  Mother bears the burden of providing a 
complete and adequate record for appellate review.  Because she failed to provide 
transcripts of the proceedings below or other evidence to refute the findings of 
the district court, we must assume that the evidence presented at the hearings 
was sufficient to support the district court's findings.

 
 
[¶12]   We affirm.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

  1W.R.A.P. 3.03 
provides:

 
 
Statement 
of evidence or proceedings when no report was made or when the transcript is 
unavailable.

 
 
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 served on appellee, who may serve objections or propose 
amendments within 15 days after service. The statement and any objections or 
proposed amendments shall be submitted to the trial court for settlement and 
approval and as settled and approved shall be included by the clerk of the trial 
court in the record on appeal.

 
 

2The 
district court's Statement Pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03 found as 
follows:

 
 
2.         
The court recalls the parties, the arguments generally, and the issues in 
the case, and was satisfied that the order was proper when it was 
entered.

 
 
3.         
The passage of time between the hearing and the presentation of the 
matter to the Court makes it impossible to recite from the Court's recollection 
what the precise evidence was upon which the court relied.  Again, the Court is confident of its 
conclusions, but there has been a great deal of activity not only in that 
portion of the Court's docket, but in the underlying case, some of which is 
still pending and none of which has, up to this point, been reported.  The Court cannot, absent that record, 
provide definitive factual representations.

 
 
4.         
The Court was forced to reject the proffered statement of the [Mother] as 
facially inaccurate and not complying in any respect with the Rule, and must now 
adopt the position that [the Father] originally took, that is, that the record 
must speak for itself in its current state.