Case Title: SLU v. STATEOF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-06-01

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2006-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
SLU v. STATEOF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2006 WY 115142 P.3d 1133Case Number: C-06-01Decided: 09/15/2006
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 

                                                                                    

SLU, 

Appellant 
(Respondent),

 v.

STATE OF 
WYOMING, 
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES,        

Appellee 
(Petitioner).

 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Walter 
Urbigkit, Cheyenne, 
Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney 
General; Dan Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Ellen Rutledge, Assistant 
Attorney General

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

 
 
* Chief Justice at time of expedited 
conference

 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      The Wyoming 
Department of Family Services (DFS) filed a petition to establish paternity and 
child support, pursuant to which a child support order was entered against 
SLU.  Accompanying the order were 
several documents including a "Child Support Computation Form" and an "Affidavit 
of Income Determination."  These two 
documents were submitted by DFS without prior approval or even knowledge of 
SLU.  SLU promptly moved to strike 
these documents, claiming they contained false information and information 
inconsistent with the final support order.  
Her motion was denied.  SLU 
filed the instant notice of appeal from the denial of her motion to strike.  

 
 
[¶2]      SLU does not take 
issue with the final support order, but rather only with the presence in the 
district court file of the two above-referenced allegedly extraneous 
documents.  SLU does not contend 
that the documents she seeks to have stricken affected the final support order 
in any manner.  As such, we need 
only rely upon SLU's own argument in determining that the order denying her 
motion to strike does not meet the definition of an appealable order as found in 
W.R.A.P. 1.05.1  Since this Court only has jurisdiction 
to entertain appeals from final appealable orders, and the order denying SLU's 
motion to strike in this matter is not such an order, we hereby dismiss this 
appeal.  Plymale v. Donnelly, 2006 WY 3, ¶ 4, 125 P.3d 1022, 1023 (Wyo. 2006).

 
 
 
 
 
 

FOOTNOTES

  1Rule 
1.05 states:

            
An appealable order is:

            
(a) An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, 
in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment; 
or

                        
(b) An order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding; 
or

                        
(c) An order made upon a summary application in an action after judgment; 
or

            
(d) An order, including a conditional order, granting a new trial on the 
grounds stated in  Rule 59(a)(4) and 
(5), Wyo. R. Civ. P.; if an appeal is taken from such an order, the judgment 
shall remain final and in effect for the purposes of appeal by another party; 
or

                        
(e) Interlocutory orders and decrees of the district courts 
which:

            
(1) Grant, continue, or modify injunctions, or dissolve injunctions, or 
refuse to dissolve or modify injunctions;  
or

            
(2) Appoint receivers, or issue orders to wind up receiverships, or to 
take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other 
disposition of property.