Case Title: RANDY EUGENE BEEMAN V. MELLISSA LEANN BEEMAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 04-68

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

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

Document:
RANDY EUGENE BEEMAN V. MELLISSA LEANN BEEMAN2005 WY 45109 P.3d 548Case Number:  04-68Decided: 04/13/2005
 
 
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
                                                                                                                                   

 
 
 
 
RANDY 
EUGENE BEEMAN,

 
 
Appellant

(Plaintiff),

 
 
v.

 
 
MELLISSA 
LEANN BEEMAN,

 
 
Appellee

(Defendant).

 
 

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

 
 
            
Don M. Empfield, Gillette, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

 
 
            
Bruce Horton, Douglas, Wyoming (deceased); and Rick Erb of Richard A. Erb, Jr., 
P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.

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

 
 

 

 
            
VOIGT, Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from a child custody decision in a divorce case.  We affirm.

 
 

 
 
[¶2]      We will restate 
the issues presented by the parties as follows:

 
 
            
1.         
Did the appellant fail to comply with W.R.A.P. 3.03 and fail to provide 
an adequate record for review and, if so, are sanctions 
appropriate?

 
 
            
2.         
Did the district court abuse its discretion in granting custody of the 
parties' children to the appellee?

 
 

 
 
[¶3]      The parties were 
married in 1995.  They have two 
sons, one born in 1996 and one born in 1998.  The appellant filed for divorce on 
February 19, 2003.  After an 
unreported bench trial nine months later, where the appellant was represented by 
counsel and the appellee appeared pro se, the district court entered its 
decree of divorce in February 2004.  
The appellee received primary custody of the 
children.

 
 
[¶4]      The appellant 
filed a Notice of Appeal on March 19, 2004.  On May 17, 2004, he filed in the 
district court a Statement of Evidence, pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03, and he filed 
in this Court a Motion Seeking Stay of Time Requirements for Filing Brief or, in 
the Alternative, an Extension of Time to File Brief.1  The appellee, now represented by 
counsel, responded with Appellee's Response to Motion for Stay or Extension of 
Time and Motion to Dismiss Appeal.  
We denied the appellant's motion as moot, because he had in the meantime 
filed his brief, and we denied the appellee's motion to dismiss as being 
insufficiently grounded.  The 
appellee then filed her brief on July 1, 2004, and the district court's 
Settlement of Evidence was made part of the record on appeal on July 9, 
2004.

 
 

 
 
            
The Record on Appeal

 
 
[¶5]      Briefs prepared 
in the absence of a transcript or other record of the district court proceedings 
necessarily lack appropriate references to that record.  That problem is exacerbated by the fact 
that W.R.A.P. 3.03 procedures occur after trial, and the rule contains no 
significant time guidelines.  The 
result is the potential for temporal overlap of district court and appellate 
court functions.2  Because of these inherent difficulties, 
and because the Settlement of Evidence was received before this case was 
considered on appeal, we will consider the record to be technically adequate and 
will decline to impose sanctions against the appellant.

 
 
            
The Custody Decision

 
 

[¶6]      The standard of 
review applicable in this case was recently reiterated in In re KRA, 2004 
WY 18, ¶ 7, 85 P.3d 432, 435 (Wyo. 2004) (quoting Produit v. Produit, 2001 
WY 123, ¶ 9, 35 P.3d 1240, 1242-43 (Wyo. 2001)):

 
 
"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).  . . .  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 (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.

 
 
[¶7]      Guiding the 
district court's exercise of discretion in making child custody decisions is the 
list of non-exclusive factors found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) (LexisNexis 
2003):

 
 
(i)         
The quality of the relationship each child has with each 
parent;

 
 
(ii)        The 
ability of each parent to provide adequate care for each child throughout each 
period of responsibility, including arranging for each child's care by others as 
needed;

 
 
(iii)       The 
relative competency and fitness of each parent;

 
 
(iv)       Each 
parent's willingness to accept all responsibilities of parenting, including a 
willingness to accept care for each child at specified times and to relinquish 
care to the other parent at specified times;

 
 
(v)        How 
the parents and each child can best maintain and strengthen a relationship with 
each other;

 
 
(vi)       How the 
parents and each child interact and communicate with each other and how such 
interaction and communication may be improved;

 
 
(vii)      The ability and 
willingness of each parent to allow the other to provide care without intrusion, 
respect the other parent's rights and responsibilities, including the right to 
privacy;

 
 
(viii)     Geographic distance 
between the parents' residences;

 
 
(ix)       The current 
physical and mental ability of each parent to care for each 
child;

 
 
(x)        Any 
other factors the court deems necessary and relevant.

 
 
To this 
list of factors, the legislature has added in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(c), the 
factor of spousal abuse or child abuse.

 
 
[¶8]      The appellant's 
attack upon the district court's exercise of its discretion in this case is 
two-pronged.  First, the appellant 
provides the following summary of what he considers to be the district court's 
errors:

 
 
            
The trial court awarded custody to a parent with an admitted propensity 
toward violence, who drinks on a regular, daily basis and who allows the 
children to go unbathed for long periods of time.  This parent has denied the other parent 
telephone access to the children and has defied the trial court's order in doing 
so.

 
 
            
The other parent here has demonstrated a peaceful disposition and has 
never been in trouble with the criminal justice system, excepting the one 
incident where the appellee alleged violation of a "no contact" order for 
leaving a message on her telephone.  
It is uncontroverted that he spent all his visitation time with the 
children and took care they were bathed and well cared 
for.

 
 
[¶9]      Next, the 
appellant addresses the above-listed statutory factors one-by-one and comments 
as to his view of the evidence.  A 
couple of examples will suffice:

 
 
(i)         
The quality of the relationship each child has with each 
parent[.]

 
 

Comment 
By Appellant:       The 
children love both parents and both of them love the children.  The uncontroverted testimony of the 
children's counselor, however, is that if they (the children) had to choose a 
parent with whom to reside, they would choose their 
father.

 
 
(ii)        The 
ability of each parent to provide adequate care for each child throughout each 
period of responsibility, including arranging for each child's care by others as 
needed[.]

 
 

Comment 
by Appellant:        
Appellant sees no substantial difference in the ability of the parents to 
provide this care.  Both parents are 
employed outside the home, the mother as an office worker for an automotive 
dealership and the father as a driller.

 
 
[¶10]   We will affirm the decision of the 
district court because we cannot predicate a finding of abuse of discretion upon 
the record presented.  It is not 
enough for an appellant to summarize alleged errors and to give his views of the 
import of the evidence.

 
 
It is 
the appellant's burden to bring a complete record to this Court.  Erhart v. Evans, 2001 WY 79, ¶ 
18, 30 P.3d 542, 547 (Wyo.2001); Wood v. Wood, 865 P.2d 616, 617 
(Wyo.1993).  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) (quoting Matter of Manning's Estate, 646 P.2d 175, 
176 (Wyo.1982)); Wood, 865 P.2d  at 618.

 
 
            
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.'  
Willowbrook Ranch, Inc. v. Nugget Exploration, Inc., 896 P.2d 769, 
771 (Wyo.1995).  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.'  896 P.2d  at 
771-72."

 
 

Williams 
v. Dietz, 999 P.2d 642, 645 (Wyo.2000) (quoting 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)).

 
 

Smith v. 
Smith, 2003 WY 
87, ¶ 11, 72 P.3d 1158, 1161 (Wyo. 2003).  See also Chancler v. Meredith, 
2004 WY 27, ¶ 5, 86 P.3d 841, 842 (Wyo. 2004).

 
 
[¶11]   Although this law has developed for 
the most part in cases where neither a transcript of the proceedings nor a 
settled statement of the evidence has been provided, the same rationale holds 
true in cases where the settled statement of the evidence does not address the 
issues presented to this Court, or does not provide sufficient basis for a 
finding of abuse of discretion.  For 
example, one allegation in the instant case is that the district court ignored 
the evidence that revealed the appellant to be a peaceful person and the 
appellee to be a violent person.  It 
is impossible for this Court to say that the district court abused its 
discretion in that regard because the record, in the form of the settled 
statement, simply does not support the allegation.  Similarly, the appellant alleges that 
the district court ignored the children's stated preference to live with the 
appellant, yet the settled statement of the evidence says nothing about such a 
stated preference being part of the evidence.

 
 

[¶12]   We repeat:  it is the appellant's burden to bring a 
sufficient record to this Court to allow review of the district court's 
discretionary decisions.  
Jordan v. 
Brackin, 992 P.2d 1096, 1099 (Wyo. 1999).  A record that reveals neither what the 
evidence was on a particular issue, nor whether the district court considered 
that evidence, does not meet that burden.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶13]   Based upon the appellate record, 
this Court cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in awarding 
custody of the parties' children to the appellee.  Affirmed.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

1

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.

 
 
W.R.A.P. 
3.03.

2Amendments 
to W.R.A.P. 3.03 are being considered that would alleviate this 
problem.