Case Title: JILL L. DURFEE V. CHRISTOPHER R. DURFEE

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-08-0036

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-01-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
JILL L. DURFEE V. CHRISTOPHER R. DURFEE2009 WY 7199 P.3d 1087Case Number: S-08-0036Decided: 01/27/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2008

 
 
JILL 
L. 
DURFEE,Appellant(Defendant/Petitioner),v.CHRISTOPHER 
R. DURFEE,Appellee(Plaintiff/Respondent).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofWestonCounty

The 
Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Christopher 
M. Wages of Goddard, Wages & Vogel, Buffalo, Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Mark 
L. Hughes of Hughes Law Office, Sundance, Wyoming

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

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Jill Durfee 
(Mother) challenges the district court's order which denied her petition to 
modify the parties' divorce decree that awarded Christopher Durfee (Father) 
primary physical custody of their two children.  The order also granted Father's petition 
to modify Mother's child support obligation and ordered Mother to pay half of 
Father's attorney fees and costs.  
We affirm.

 
 

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Mother presents 
the following issues:

 
 
1.  Whether the District Court erred when it 
denied Appellant's Petition for Modification of Child Custody and Child 
Support.

 
 
2.  Whether the District Court erred when it 
granted Appellee's Petition for Modification of Child 
Support.

 
 
3.  Whether the District Court erred when it 
awarded Appellee one-half of his attorney's fees and 
costs.

 
 

FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Father and Mother 
were married in September 2000.  The 
marriage produced two sons, GD and BD.  
In May 2005, after the parties reached a settlement agreement concerning 
custody, support, and the division of the marital property, Father filed for 
divorce.  The divorce decree was 
entered on July 21, 2005.  
Consistent with the parties' agreement, the divorce decree awarded Father 
primary physical custody of the children, subject to reasonable and liberal 
visitation by Mother, and ordered Mother to pay monthly child support.  

 
 
[¶4]      After the 
divorce, Father's and Mother's lives underwent some changes.  Father remarried and now lives with the 
children, his new wife, and her three children from a previous marriage in a 
four bedroom home in Upton, 
Wyoming.  Mother also remarried and now lives in 
Belle Fourche, South Dakota, with her new husband and their 
eleven-month-old daughter.  

 
 
[¶5]      On September 21, 
2006, alleging materially changed circumstances, Mother filed a petition to 
modify the custody and child support provisions of the divorce decree, 
requesting primary custody of the children be given to her.  On November 3, 2006, Father filed a 
petition to modify child support, requesting an increase in Mother's child 
support obligation.  The district 
court conducted a hearing on October 18 and December 12, 2007, during which it 
entertained testimony and other evidence from both parties.  The district court ultimately denied 
Mother's petition, concluding that Mother failed to establish a material change 
in circumstances justifying a modification of the original custody order.  The district court increased Mother's 
monthly child support obligation and ordered her to pay fifty percent of 
Father's attorney fees and costs.  
This appeal followed.

 
 

DISCUSSION

 
 

Custody 
Modification

 
 
[¶6]      The party seeking 
to modify the child custody provisions of a divorce decree bears the burden of 
showing that a material change in circumstances has occurred subsequent to the 
entry of the decree.  If that 
showing is made, then the party must also show that modification of custody 
would be in the best interests of the children.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) 
(LexisNexis 2007); Hayzlett v. 
Hayzlett, 2007 WY 147, ¶ 9, 167 P.3d 639, 642 (Wyo. 2007); CLH v. MMJ, 2006 WY 28, ¶ 8, 129 P.3d 874, 876 (Wyo. 2006) (modification is a two step process). Findings regarding 
material change of circumstances are principally factual determinations to which 
we accord great deference.  Morris v. Morris, 2007 WY 174, ¶ 7, 170 P.3d 86, 89 (Wyo. 2007); CLH, ¶ 11, 
129 P.3d  at 877. This Court has consistently recognized the broad discretion 
enjoyed by a district court in child custody matters.  We will not interfere with the district 
court's custody determination absent procedural error or a clear abuse of 
discretion.  CLH, ¶ 6, 129 P.3d  at 876; Fergusson v. Fergusson, 2002 WY 66, ¶ 9, 
45 P.3d 641, 644 (Wyo. 2002); Semler v. 
Semler, 924 P.2d 422, 423-24 (Wyo. 1996).  In determining whether an abuse of 
discretion has occurred, our primary consideration is the reasonableness of the 
district court's decision in light of the evidence presented.  CLH, ¶ 6, 129 P.3d  at 876.  We view the evidence in the light most 
favorable to the district court's determination, affording every favorable 
inference to the prevailing party and omitting from our consideration the 
conflicting evidence.  Id.; Selvey v. Selvey, 2004 WY 166, ¶ 15, 102 P.3d 210, 214 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
[¶7]      Mother contends 
the district court erred in failing to find a material change of circumstances 
to support a modification of the custody arrangement.  Mother succinctly sums up her contention 
in her appellate brief:

 
 
The 
totality of the trial testimony showed that there has been a substantial change 
of circumstances since the parties' divorce.  [Mother] was depressed, broke, and had 
no place to live that was suitable for her children at the time of their 
divorce.  [Mother] knew that she was 
emotionally and financially incapable of having primary custody of her children 
at that time, but made it known at the time of the parties' settlement agreement 
that if she got back on her feet, she wanted primary custody transferred to 
her.  Now, [Mother] has surged far 
ahead in her personal development and ability to serve as a parent.  She has remarried to Cole Steeves, and 
she is in a stable, loving relationship with him.  They have one baby girl, [HS], who is 
11½ months old.  She moved to 
Belle Fourche, South Dakota, and lives in a large, nice, 
stable home.  Her home has ample 
space and is more than suitable for her sons.  She is financially sound and is a stay 
at home mother who has significant time to devote to raising [GD] and [BD].  

 
 
[¶8]      There are several 
flaws with Mother's argument.  
First, Mother's allegation that she and Father agreed to renegotiate 
custody after she "got back on her feet" is not supported by any admissible 
evidence produced at the hearing below.  
Second, although an improvement in the personal development of one parent 
may constitute a material change in circumstances, a change in custody is not 
automatic.  See Mentock v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156 
(Wyo. 1981) 
(change in circumstances must be material enough to outweigh society's interest 
in applying the doctrine of res judicata).  
See also CLH, 2006 WY 28, 129 P.3d 874; Jackson v. Jackson, 2004 WY 
99, 96 P.3d 21 (Wyo. 2004); Roberts v. 
Vilos, 776 P.2d 216 (Wyo. 1989); Kreuter v. Kreuter, 728 P.2d 1129 
(Wyo. 
1986).  Mother's evidence at the 
hearing essentially showed she was in a stable relationship with her new husband 
and lived in a nice house.  While 
Mother's situation is commendable, we agree with the district court that it is 
not material enough to warrant reopening the initial custody determination.

 
 
[¶9]      Mother also 
contends circumstances have materially changed because Father's personal 
condition has deteriorated to the detriment of the children.  Some of Mother's allegations against 
Father actually concern matters which existed at the time the initial divorce 
decree was entered.  Mother's 
remaining allegations were contradicted by evidence presented at the 
hearing.  Our review of the record 
satisfies us that none of Mother's allegations justify a finding of a material 
change in circumstances.1

 
 

Child 
Support and Attorney Fees

 
 
[¶10]   Mother makes the same argument for 
both these issues.  Her argument is 
essentially that, if she were to prevail on the first issue, the results on 
these two issues should change in her favor.  Because Mother did not prevail on the 
first issue, by her own presentation these issues are 
moot.

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶11]   We find no abuse of discretion in 
the district court's determination that no material change in circumstances 
existed warranting modification of custody.  Mother's other issues are moot.  Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Since we 
find no material change in circumstances, Mother's appellate argument concerning 
the best interests of the children is moot.