Title: Muldoon v. Schatzman

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Muldoon v. Schatzman1995 WY 154902 P.2d 218Case Number: 95-18Decided: 09/13/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming
Constance 
Mary MULDOON, 

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

James 
Carl SCHATZMAN, 

Appellee 
(Defendant).

Caroline 
A. Papa, Laramie, for appellant.

Becky 
N. Klemt of Pence and MacMillan, Laramie, for 
appellee.

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant 
Constance Muldoon (mother) seeks review of the district court's order denying 
post-trial motions. The underlying order of the district court was a decree of 
divorce which awarded primary custody of the parties' minor child to appellee 
James Schatzman (father).

[¶2]  We affirm.

[¶3]      Mother contends 
that the great weight of evidence requires a conclusion by this court that the 
district court's order awarding primary custody of the minor child to the father 
constitutes an abuse of discretion. The evidence heard by the district court was 
very much in dispute. Mother contended father had abused the child both 
physically and sexually, though there was no evidence beyond her accusations to 
support such a finding. Father claimed mother was mentally ill and generally 
unstable and, likewise, there was very little concrete evidence of that. An 
independent psychological evaluation of both parents produced a balanced opinion 
that father, as between these two parents, was better equipped to deal with the 
demands of parenthood. The district court performed its assigned task with 
solomonic competence. We hold there was no abuse of discretion. See Pinther v. 
Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250 (Wyo. 1995); Dowdy v. Dowdy, 864 P.2d 439 (Wyo. 1993); 
Trudeau v. Trudeau, 822 P.2d 873 (Wyo. 1991); Uhls v. Uhls, 794 P.2d 894 (Wyo. 
1990); Deen v. Deen, 774 P.2d 621 (Wyo. 1989). For the same reasons, we find 
there was no abuse of discretion in denying mother's post-trial 
motions.

[¶4]      Father contends 
the appeal should be dismissed because the notice of appeal was not timely 
filed. The record is not sufficiently clear to make that determination, and so 
we decline to do so.

[¶5]      Father also asks 
us to find that the appeal was without reasonable cause and to dismiss the 
appeal and award him costs and penalties. W.R.A.P. 10.05. We decline to make 
such a finding. An award of fees or damages under Rule 10.05 is not appropriate 
where a discretionary ruling of the district court is questioned. 
Mulkey-Yelverton v. Blevins, 884 P.2d 41, 44 (Wyo. 1994); James S. Jackson Co., 
Inc. v. Meyer, 677 P.2d 835, 839 (Wyo. 1984). Father's motion is 
denied.

[¶6]  The judgment and orders of the district 
court are affirmed.