Case Title: Uhls v. Uhls

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1990-07-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Uhls v. Uhls1990 WY 77794 P.2d 894Case Number: 89-256Decided: 07/19/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
DANIEL LEE UHLS, 

APPELLANT 
(PLAINTIFF),

v.

DARLENE MARY UHLS, 

APPELLEE 
(DEFENDANT).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Washakie County, Gary P. Hartman, J.

G. Albert Sinn, 
Worland, for appellant.

H. Richard 
Hopkinson of Gorrell & Hopkinson, P.C., Worland, for 
appellee.

Before 
CARDINE, C.J.*, and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, 
JJ.

* Chief Justice at time of 
oral argument.

CARDINE, Justice.

[¶1]      The central issue 
in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding 
custody of the parties' two minor children to appellee, Darlene Uhls (wife), 
rather than to appellant, Daniel Uhls (husband). A secondary issue is whether 
there is reasonable cause for this appeal and whether this court should award 
appellee fees and damages as provided in W.R.A.P. 10.05.

[¶2]      We affirm the 
decree awarding custody of the children to wife and, finding no reasonable cause 
for appeal, award $500 as attorney fees to appellee's counsel.

[¶3]      Husband states 
the issue to be:

"Did the trial court 
abuse its discretion and thus err as a matter of law by failing to properly 
consider the best interests of the children in a child custody dispute, by 
awarding the custody of the children to the mother and not to the 
father?"

Wife states the 
issues this way:

"1. Whether or not the 
trial court erred when determining the best interests of the children[.] After 
weighing the evidence presented in the case[,] the court granted custody of the 
children to the mother.

"2. Whether or not there 
is reasonable cause for plaintiff's [husband's] appeal as required by W.R.A.P. 
10.05[.]"

[¶4]      Husband filed a 
complaint in the District Court of Washakie County on May 12, 1989, seeking a 
divorce and custody of his two minor children. Wife answered and counterclaimed 
on May 16, 1989, seeking custody of the children. On May 22, 1989, husband 
agreed to pay temporary support to wife and to place temporary custody with 
wife. On August 21, 1989, a hearing was held before the district court to settle 
the matter of child custody, as well as the remaining issues not resolved by the 
parties.

[¶5]      Husband admitted 
he had a violent temper and had used a belt on his six-year-old daughter to the 
extent that he raised welts on the child. He also testified he had used the belt 
on his four-year-old son and that he had used it on both children with some 
frequency. Rebecca Luhm of the Department of Public Assistance and Social 
Services (DPASS) testified that she had conducted an investigation into the 
allegations that wife had abused the daughter. She concluded that wife had 
abused the daughter and that both parents had left the children alone at home 
and unsupervised. Mrs. Luhm further testified that she did not feel the children 
were "in any imminent danger" with wife. The trial court expressed concern about 
the parenting skills of both parents. The court was concerned with husband's 
temper and with the evidence that wife had abused the children. The court 
awarded custody to wife because it believed she had a strong willingness to work 
with DPASS to develop better parenting skills so as to be able to properly raise 
the children.

[¶6]      There is 
sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision of the district court 
to award custody to wife. We adhere to our longstanding rule that

"[t]his 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, as is said to mean 
an error of law committed by the court under the circumstances." Deen v. Deen, 
774 P.2d 621, 622 (Wyo. 1989). See also Fanning v. Fanning, 717 P.2d 346, 349 
(Wyo. 1986); Annotation, Modern Status of Maternal Preference Rule or 
Presumption in Child Custody Cases, 70 A.L.R.3d 262, § 13[b] (1976).

This case was 
tried to the court. It heard all the evidence and faced a difficult decision. 
Both parents' parenting skills were in need of improvement, and both needed some 
supervision from DPASS. The decision to place custody with wife was made after 
careful evaluation of the evidence and with the goal of serving the best 
interests of the children. The trial court's decision is clearly within the 
bounds of reason. We do not find anything in the record, or in the argument 
presented by husband, to suggest that the trial court abused its discretion. 
Much of husband's argument concerns the credibility of witnesses and the weight 
to be given their testimony, as was the case in Deen, 774 P.2d  at 622. A long 
line of decisions establishes that these are matters to be resolved by the trier 
of fact, not by an appellate court.

[¶7]      W.R.A.P. 10.05 
provides that if this court certifies there is no reasonable cause for appeal, 
reasonable attorney fees and reasonable damages may be awarded to the appellee's 
counsel and appellee, in addition to the usual award of costs. Wife asserts she 
is entitled to relief under this provision, and we agree. We certify there was 
no reasonable cause for this appeal and, in addition to the usual award of 
costs, we award wife the sum of $500 as attorney fees. We do not award any sum 
as damages.

[¶8]      The decree of the 
district court awarding custody to wife is affirmed.