Case Title: IN THE INTEREST OF DMW and ALW, minors, AW and LW V. TLW

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-08-0217

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-08-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE INTEREST OF DMW and ALW, minors, AW and LW V. TLW2009 WY 106214 P.3d 996Case Number: S-08-0217Decided: 08/24/2009
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
IN 
THE INTEREST OF DMW and ALW, minors,AW and 
LW,Appellants(Respondents),v.TLW,Appellee(Petitioner).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Hot Springs County

The 
Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellants:

W. 
Keith Goody, Cougar, Washington.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Douglas 
F. Schultz and James K. Lubing, of James K. Lubing Law Office, Jackson, 
Wyoming.  Argument by Mr. 
Schultz.

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

 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      AW and LW 
(Grandparents) appeal from the district court's order granting permanent 
guardianship and conservatorship1 of DMW and ALW (the Boys) to TLW 
(Stepmother).  Grandparents claim 
that they were not provided proper notice of, or an opportunity to be heard on, 
Stepmother's petition for temporary guardianship, the district court erred by 
failing to give priority to Grandparents as guardians for the Boys based upon 
Father's written statement giving the grandfather custody of them, and the 
district court did not act in the Boys' best interests when it awarded 
guardianship to Stepmother.

 
 
[¶2]      We affirm. 

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶3]      Grandparents 
identify a single vague issue on appeal:

 
 
Did 
the District Court err when it awarded permanent guardianship and 
conservatorship of DMW and AL[W] to the stepmother, TLW, rather than the 
paternal grandparents, AW and LW?

 
 
Stepmother 
does not present a separate statement of the issues.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      DMW is a male 
child who is now almost 9 years old.  
ALW is a male child who is now about 7 years old.  Their parents, JW (Father) and HS 
(Biological Mother), were never married.  Until 2005, Biological Mother had custody 
of the Boys and they lived in Ohio.  
In the summer of 2005, facing an action by the Ohio family services 
agency because of violence in the home, Biological Mother agreed that the Boys 
could live with Father.  At that 
time, Father and Stepmother were living together in Ohio, although they did not 
marry until January of 2006.  
Stepmother also had custody of a daughter from a previous relationship 
(Stepsister).  After moving in with 
Father and Stepmother, the Boys began counseling.

 
 
[¶5]      In the spring of 
2006, Father, Stepmother, Stepsister, and the Boys moved to Thermopolis, where 
Father had secured a job.  Shortly 
after the move, the Boys began counseling with Hot Springs County Counseling 
Services.  They also attended school 
in Thermopolis.

 
 
[¶6]      In 2007, 
Stepmother engaged in an extra-marital affair.  Upon learning of the affair, Father and 
the Boys returned to Ohio on July 3, 2007, where they stayed with 
Grandparents.  On July 18, 2007, 
Father was killed in an automobile accident.  The Boys were not involved in the 
accident, as they were with Grandparents at that time.

 
 
[¶7]      On July 19, 2007, 
Stepmother petitioned for temporary and permanent guardianship of the Boys.  After an ex parte conference with 
Stepmother and her counsel, the district court awarded Stepmother temporary 
guardianship of the Boys.  
Stepmother filed the Wyoming order in Ohio.  She traveled to Ohio to attend services 
for Father and pick up the Boys.  
She and the Boys returned to Wyoming, and they have since been in 
Stepmother's custody.

 
 
[¶8]      Biological Mother 
and Grandparents were formally served with the guardianship documents on August 
10, 2007, and given notice that a hearing on Stepmother's guardianship petition 
would be held on September 28, 2007.  
Biological Mother filed a motion to terminate Stepmother's temporary 
guardianship of the Boys, and Grandparents filed a motion to intervene, seeking 
to be appointed as co-guardians of the Boys.  The district court heard evidence on the 
pending motions at the September 28th hearing; 
however, the parties did not finish with their case presentations that day, and 
the hearing was continued until April 17 and 18, 2008.  In the meantime, a guardian ad litem 
(GAL) was appointed.

 
 
[¶9]      After the hearing 
concluded in April 2008, the district court issued a decision letter and order 
including detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The district court ruled that Biological 
Mother was not fit to parent the Boys and, consequently, a guardian needed to be 
appointed.  The district court 
concluded that it was in the Boys' best interests to appoint Stepmother as their 
guardian.  Biological Mother did not 
appeal the district court's order, but Grandparents did.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶10]   The standard of review for 
guardianship cases was well stated in KO 
v. LDH (In re Guardianship of 
MEO), 2006 WY 87, ¶ 17, 138 P.3d 1145, 1150 (Wyo. 2006) (citations omitted):

 
 
We 
presume the district court's findings of fact are correct and will not set them 
aside unless the findings are inconsistent with the evidence, clearly erroneous 
or contrary to the great weight of the evidence.  Additionally, we review a district 
court's conclusions of law de novo. Id. Construction of the guardianship statutes involves a 
question of law which we review de novo.

 
 
A 
finding of fact 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."  In re Estate of Thomas, 2009 WY 
10, ¶ 6, 199 P.3d 1090, 1093 (Wyo. 2009) (quoting Mullinnix LLC v. HKB 
Royalty Trust, 2006 WY 14, ¶ 12, 126 P.3d 909, 916 (Wyo. 
2006)).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
1.         
Due Process

 
 

[¶11]   Guardianship 
matters are controlled exclusively by statute.  MEO, ¶ 18, 138 P.3d  at 1150.  Grandparents 
cite to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
3-2-102 (a) and (b) and § 
3-2-106 in support of their contention that they did not receive proper notice 
or an opportunity to be heard prior to entry of the temporary guardianship.  Section 3-2-102 states in relevant 
part:

 
 
(a)  Notice 
of filing of a petition for appointment of an involuntary guardianship shall be 
served on the proposed ward, his custodian and the proposed 
guardian.

(b)  Notice 
of filing of a petition for appointment of an involuntary guardianship shall be 
served on the proposed ward's parents, spouse and adult children who are known 
or who can be discovered with due diligence[.]

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 3-2-102 (a)(b) (LexisNexis 2009).

 
 
[¶12]   Section 3-2-102 does not 
specifically apply to temporary guardianships. Moreover, it does not state that 
grandparents per se are entitled to notice of a petition for guardianship of 
their grandchildren.  Grandparents 
claim that they were entitled to notice in this case because they were the Boys' 
custodians after Father died.  The 
district court did not specifically find that they were the Boys' custodians, or 
make any explicit findings about their right to notice of the guardianship 
proceeding.  At any rate, because 
Grandparents were given notice of Stepmother's petition for guardianship, that 
provision was satisfied.

 
 
[¶13]   Unlike § 3-2-102, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
3-2-106 (LexisNexis 2009) specifically applies to temporary guardianships.  Section 3-2-106 states in relevant 
part:

 
 
§ 
3-2-106.  Appointment of a temporary or emergency 
guardian.

(a)  Upon 
the filing of a petition for a temporary guardian other than a petition for 
temporary guardianship for educational, medical care and dental care purposes 
pursuant to W.S. 3-2-301 through 3-2-303 and after a hearing the court may 
appoint a temporary guardian subject to any notice and conditions the court 
prescribes.

 
 
That 
provision does not specify notice requirements, but instead, allows the district 
court to prescribe "any notice and conditions."  The provision does state, however, that 
a temporary guardian will be appointed "after a hearing."  In MEO we ruled that, in the context of an 
involuntary guardianship of a minor, the "after the hearing" language in § 
3-2-106(a) cannot be satisfied by the district court's review of the petition in 
an ex parte conference.  Id. at ¶ 37, 138 P.3d  at 1156.  Because it does not appear that a 
hearing was held in this case, that provision was not 
satisfied.

 
 
[¶14]   Grandparents argue that, under our 
decision in MEO, a shadow was cast 
upon Stepmother's appointment because the statutory provisions for temporary 
guardianship were not followed.  MEO involved a case where the 
grandparents obtained temporary and permanent guardianship of their 
granddaughter.  MEO's mother claimed 
that she was not given proper notice or an opportunity to be heard before the 
grandparents were granted temporary guardianship of her daughter.  Id., ¶ 11, 138 P.3d  at 1149.  We agreed, ruling that a guardianship 
established over the parent's objection implicates the fundamental right to 
familial association between a parent and child.  Id., ¶¶ 20-21, 138 P.3d  at 
1152.  Because the grandparents 
gained temporary guardianship of MEO after an ex parte request to the district 
court without giving the mother notice or an opportunity to be heard, we ruled 
that the mother's due process rights were violated.  We explained:

 
 
The 
district court erred in appointing [the] [g]randparents temporary guardians of 
MEO without adherence to the statutory requirements regarding notice and a 
hearing.  Without affording [the 
mother] proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, the district court's 
establishment of the temporary guardianship lacked "fundamental fairness."  These procedural defects cast a shadow 
over the permanent guardianship as well. 

 
 

MEO, 
¶ 40, 138 P.3d  at 1157.

 
 
[¶15]   In arguing that MEO governs their rights, Grandparents 
attempt to lump their rights in with Biological Mother's.  Biological Mother did not, however, 
appeal from the district court's order, and Grandparents do not have standing to 
assert her position.  See generally, 
TF v. State of Wyoming, Department of 
Family Services (In re Adoption of CF), 2005 WY 118, 120 P.3d 992 (Wyo. 
2005) (issue belonging to grandfather/intervenor in adoption proceeding could 
not be raised by biological mother on appeal).  Moreover, they do not cite to any 
authority stating that grandparents have the same fundamental rights as 
parents to notice and an opportunity 
to be heard before a temporary guardianship may be established.  Thus, while it is true that the district 
court should have held a hearing prior to appointment of Stepmother as temporary 
guardian of the Boys, Grandparents have not shown that they had a right to 
notice of the petition or to attend a hearing prior to appointment of a 
temporary guardian.2

 
 
            
2.         
Best Interests of Children

 
 
[¶16]   Under Wyoming's guardianship statutes, the district 
court may appoint a guardian for a proposed minor ward when the "necessity for 
the appointment of a guardian" has been "prove[n] by a preponderance of the 
evidence."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
3-2-104(a) (LexisNexis 2009).  In MEO, ¶ 55, 138 P.3d  at 1161, we 
held that a minor with a living parent has a natural guardian; consequently, a 
guardianship may be established over the parent's objection only if he or she is 
found to be unfit.  See also, DJM v. DM (In the Interest of SRB-M), 
2009 WY 22, ¶ 19, 201 P.3d 1115, 1119-20 (Wyo. 2009); AKA v. GS (In re Guardianship of BJO), 
2007 WY 135, ¶ 13, 165 P.3d 442, 445 (Wyo. 2007).

 
 
[¶17]   Here, the district court determined 
that Biological Mother was unfit and, because their Father was deceased, the 
Boys needed a guardian.  Biological 
Mother did not appeal from the district court's determination that she was 
unfit.  Consequently, we consider it 
established that appointment of a guardian for the Boys was 
necessary.

 
 
[¶18]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-107(d) 
and (e) (LexisNexis 2009) governs who may be appointed as a minor's 
guardian.  Those provisions 
direct:

 
 

§ 
3-2-107.  Who may be appointed as guardian; preference for appointment 
of guardians.

            
.

(d)  Subject 
to subsection (e) of this section, qualified persons have priority for 
appointment as guardian of a minor in the following order:

(i)  The 
parent or parents of the minor;

(ii)  The 
person nominated as guardian in the will of the custodial 
parent;

(iii)  The 
person requested by a minor who has reached the age of fourteen (14) 
years;

(iv)  Any 
other person whose appointment would be in the best interests of the 
minor.

(e)  The 
court shall consider the priorities established in subsections (c) and (d) of 
this section, but shall not be bound by those priorities. The court shall 
appoint the person who is best qualified and willing to serve as 
guardian.

 
 
As 
indicated in the statute and our case law, the "best interests of the children" 
is the touchstone in awarding guardianship of minors.  See, e.g., BJO, ¶ 14, 165 P.3d  at 
445-46.

 
 
[¶19]   The district court issued a 
detailed decision letter and order setting forth its reasoning that appointment 
of Stepmother as the Boys' guardian was in their best interests.  Although a great deal of the decision 
letter was devoted to the Biological Mother's fitness, it also included 
significant findings on the relative qualifications of Grandparents and 
Stepmother to serve as the Boys' guardian.  
The district court noted that Stepmother had been the Boys' primary 
caregiver since July 2005.  She was 
actively involved in their education, social activities and counseling.  The district court found that the Boys 
were doing "exceptionally well educationally" under Stepmother's care.  The district court acknowledged 
Stepmother had been involved in many romantic relationships, including four 
marriages by the age of 25, but stated that the counselors had indicated that 
her "relationship issues" had not "affected her ability to care for and nurture" 
the Boys.  In particular, the 
district court found that Stepmother's marriage shortly before the guardianship 
hearing "has not had a detrimental effect on the [Boys]."

 
 
[¶20]   Considering Grandparents' 
qualifications to serve as the Boys' guardians, the district court found that 
"Grandparents, while expressing an interest, have not been that actively 
involved in the minor children's lives since March of 2006, when the family 
moved to Thermopolis, and have not provided financial assistance for the minor 
children."  The decision letter also 
stated that "although [Father] indicated a preference for his parents to have 
the custody of the children" it would not give that statement any 
weight.

 
 
[¶21]   Grandparents claim the district 
court erred by refusing to give effect to Father's written statement that they 
be appointed as the Children's guardians.  
At trial, Grandparents submitted a document signed by Father on July 3, 
2007, in which he gave temporary custody of the Boys to the grandfather, 
AW.  The document was handwritten, 
signed by Father and his signature was notarized.  Section 3-2-107 (d)(ii) states that 
priority for appointment of a guardian for a minor should be given to "[t]he 
person nominated as guardian in the will of the custodial parent."  Grandparents concede that the document 
signed by Father was not technically a will, but argue that the district court 
should have considered it and given them preference as the Boys' guardians 
anyway.  Regardless of the validity 
of the document, subsection (e) of the statute makes it very clear that, while 
the court shall consider the priorities set out for appointment of a guardian 
for minors, it is not bound by them.  
Instead, the district court "shall appoint the person who is best 
qualified and willing to serve as guardian."  The district court was explicit that it 
made its decision based upon the "best interests" of the Boys.  Thus, there was no error in refusing to 
give effect to Father's wishes that grandfather act as the Boys' 
custodian.

 
 
[¶22]   The evidence presented at the 
evidentiary hearing establishes that the district court's findings regarding the 
relative abilities of the Stepmother and Grandparents to serve as guardian of 
the Boys were not clearly erroneous.  
The Boys had been in Stepmother's care since June or July 2005.  According to their counselors, the Boys 
had gone from having significant psychological problems to well adjusted 
children while in her care.  They 
described Stepmother's commitment to the Boys' counseling and her willingness to 
take part in the counseling sessions.  
The counselors testified that the Boys should remain in Stepmother's 
custody.

 
 
[¶23]   The counselors stated that 
Grandparents had not made an effort to participate in the Boys' counseling and 
had, in fact, only contacted them one time.  The grandmother, LW, apparently 
contacted DMW's counselor shortly after Father's death asking for advice on how 
to tell the Boys that their father had died.  The counselor recommended that they wait 
until Stepmother arrived in Ohio to tell them, but the grandfather, AW, told 
them without waiting for Stepmother.

 
 
[¶24]   The Boys' teachers also 
testified.  They stated that the 
Boys were doing well in school and that Stepmother was very involved in their 
education.  She took extraordinary 
steps to transition ALW from preschool to kindergarten by interviewing the 
potential teachers and selecting the teacher who would best meet his needs.  She also arranged for him to visit the 
teacher prior to the start of the school year.  The teachers testified that Stepmother 
attended conferences and other school related events and volunteered at 
school.  She also regularly helped 
the Boys with homework.  In 
contrast, they stated that the Grandparents had never contacted them.  Thus, the counselors and teachers all 
agreed that the Boys were well cared for by Stepmother and Grandparents had not 
taken an active role in the Boys' counseling or education.

 
 
[¶25]   Stepmother attended to the Boys' 
medical needs as well.  She had 
arranged for medical insurance coverage for the Boys through the Wyoming 
Medicaid program.  She took ALW to 
Billings, Montana, for medical tests and arranged for him to get a tonsillectomy 
and have tubes placed in his ears.  
She also saw to the Boys' dental care needs.  Grandparents did not provide any 
financial assistance to Stepmother for the Boys' medical or dental care.  The evidence also showed that Stepmother 
managed the Boys' social schedules.  
She testified that she ensured that they were involved in numerous 
extracurricular and religious activities.

 
 
[¶26]   Grandparents emphasize Stepmother's 
history of a large number of romantic relationships and argue that her personal 
life is detrimental to the Boys' welfare.  
The evidence showed that Stepmother had been married four times, with her 
most recent marriage occurring shortly before the April 2008 hearing.  In addition, she had an extra-marital 
affair while married to Father and had dated other men after his death and 
before her current marriage.

 
 
[¶27]   The GAL initially recommended that 
the Boys be placed with either Stepmother or Grandparents.  After she learned of Stepmother's 
marriage, she revised her position and recommended that Grandparents be 
appointed as the Boys' guardians.  
The district court rejected the GAL's recommendation, concluding that the 
best interests of the Boys' required Stepmother to be appointed as their 
guardian.  The district court 
specifically found that Stepmother's relationship history, including her recent 
marriage, did not adversely affect her ability to nurture and care for the 
Boys.  The evidence supports the 
district court's findings.  The 
counselors were aware of Stepmother's relationship history when they recommended 
that the Boys' remain in her custody.  
They stated that, despite Stepmother's romantic relationships, the Boys' 
had shown a steady improvement in all areas while in her 
care.

 
 
[¶28]   Grandparents also point to the 
testimony of one of Stepmother's neighbors who stated that Stepmother had 
parties at her house until the early morning hours, while the boys were 
present.  This neighbor had been 
enlisted by Grandparents to keep an eye on Stepmother. The problem with 
Grandparents' argument is that, even if we take the neighbor's testimony as 
true, the evidence does not indicate that Stepmother's behavior had an adverse 
impact on the Boys.

 
 
[¶29]   Grandparents also maintain that 
they should have been appointed as guardians of the Boys because they are 
mature, stable, and financially responsible.  The evidence certainly bears out that 
characterization of Grandparents, as they had been married and lived in the same 
home for many years and their financial situation appeared to be stable.  However, despite being presented with 
evidence of Grandparents' personal stability, the district court concluded that 
appointing Stepmother as guardian was in the Boys' best interest based upon her 
devotion to the Boys.

 
 
[¶30]   Finally, Grandparents state that 
they will make sure the Boys maintain a close relationship with Biological 
Mother and other extended family and suggest that Stepmother will not make such 
efforts.  The record, however, shows 
that Stepmother allows and facilitates contact between the Boys and other family 
members.  She also took the children 
to Ohio over Easter in 2008 and made arrangements for them to spend time with 
Grandparents and Biological Mother.  
The district court's order specifically recognized the importance of the 
Boys maintaining a relationship with Biological Mother and Grandparents.  It ordered:

 
 
2.         
The Stepmother, Grandparents and [Biological] Mother shall work together 
with the counselors at Hot Springs County Counseling Center to establish an 
appropriate visitation plan that afford[s] the minor children a meaningful 
relationship and contact with [Biological] Mother and 
Grandparents.

 
 
3.         
Stepmother . . . as Guardian and Conservator, of the minor children, 
shall keep the [Biological] Mother and Grandparents informed of the children's 
activities and school schedules.

 
 
The 
district court's order allays the concern that awarding guardianship to 
Stepmother will endanger the relationship between the Boys and the rest of their 
family.

 
 
[¶31]   We recognize that it may be unusual 
for children to be placed in the care of a stepparent rather than their 
biological grandparents.  The 
extraordinary nature of such an appointment is magnified by the fact that 
Stepmother was estranged from Father at the time of his death.  Nevertheless, the guardianship statutes 
mandate that the district court protect the children's best interests.  This is true even if it means placing 
the children with someone who is not related to them by blood.  Applying our standard of review, we will 
only set aside the district court's findings of fact if they are clearly 
erroneous.  There was ample evidence 
to support the district court's findings as to the ability and willingness of 
the parties to parent the Boys.  On 
this record, we certainly cannot say that the district court's finding that 
placement of the Boys with Stepmother was in their best interest was clearly 
erroneous.

 
 
[¶32]   The district court's order is 
affirmed in all respects.

FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Grandparents do not make a direct challenge to the district court's order 
appointing Stepmother as conservator for the Boys.  When we were presented with a similar 
situation in KO v. LDH (In re Guardianship of MEO), 2006 WY 87, ¶ 6, n. 3, 138 P.3d 1145, 1148, n.3 (Wyo. 2006), we limited our decision to the guardianship 
issues.  We will follow the same 
approach here.

 
 

2Stepmother argues that the ex parte hearing without notice to 
Grandparents was appropriate under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-302.  That section provides for appointment of 
a child's caregiver as temporary guardian for educational, medical and dental 
care purposes.  Pursuant to 
subsection (b) of the statute, 

 
 
§ 
3-2-302.  Appointment of temporary guardian for educational, medical 
care and dental care purposes.

.

(b)  A temporary guardian for educational, medical care and 
dental care purposes may be appointed through an ex parte guardianship order 
without notice to the child's natural parents if the court finds  temporary 
guardianship is in the best interests of the child and not detrimental to the 
interests of any other person and that no other person appears to have authority 
and willingness to act in the circumstances.

 
 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3-2-302(b) (LexisNexis 
2009).

 
 
It does not appear that the district court was specifically 
informed that Stepmother was 
proceeding under § 3-2-302.  The 
petition did not cite to § 3-2-301 et seq. or include some of the required 
information, such as the last known 
address of Biological Mother, or a "concise statement setting forth the attempts 
made by the petitioner and whether the petitioner has been able to contact" the 
Biological Mother to advise her "of the petitioner's intent to enroll the child 
in school, to authorize medical or dental care or seek a temporary guardianship" 
for those purposes.  Although the 
petition indicated that Stepmother was seeking appointment as guardian of the 
children for purposes of their "educational and medical care," it also stated 
that she was seeking appointment for purposes of providing the children with 
day-to-day care.  An appointment as 
a guardian for all purposes fits within the general guardianship statutes, Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 3-2-101 et seq., rather than the specific provisions for 
appointment as temporary guardian for educational, medical or dental care 
purposes under § 3-2-301, et. seq.  
Thus, § 3-2-301 et seq. does not apply in this 
case.