Title: DJG v. MAP

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

DJG v. MAP1994 WY 114883 P.2d 946Case Number: 94-12Decided: 10/24/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
DJG,

Appellant 
(Defendant),

v.

MAP,

Appellee 
(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal from District 
Court of Laramie County, Nicholas G. Kalokathis, J.

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Bert T. Ahlstrom, Jr. and 
Shelly Kay Flot, Cheyenne.

Representing 
Appellee:

Rocklon L. Edmonds, 
Cheyenne.

 

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

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

[¶1]      DJG (mother) 
appeals from a trial court order modifying an original decree between the 
parties with respect to child custody provisions, claiming that the trial court 
erred in determining that a change in circumstances sufficient to allow 
modification of the original child custody decree had occurred and that the best 
interests of the child favored a change in custody.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      The mother sets 
out two issues for our consideration:

I. Did the trial court 
err in finding and holding that there had occurred a change of circumstances 
sufficient to allow modification of custody in the case at 
bar?

II. Did the trial court 
abuse its discretion in finding a change of custody met the "best interest" test 
of the minor child?

[¶4]      The father states 
the issue as:

I. Whether or not there 
was an abuse of discretion by the district court in granting full legal custody 
of [the child] to the Appellee.

BACKGROUND

[¶5]      A child, AMP, was 
born to DJG and MAP (father) on April 19, 1984. The mother and father never 
married, and the child has been in the custody of the mother since birth. The 
father filed a paternity action in 1985; and, on February 23, 1987, the trial 
court entered the original decree placing legal custody of the child with the 
mother and granting the father visitation rights.

[¶6]      On July 14, 1992, 
the father filed a motion to modify the original decree, seeking to change legal 
custody of the child. The district court commissioner heard the case and 
concluded that no change of circumstances, sufficient to warrant modification of 
the original decree respecting custody of the child, had occurred. The father 
objected to this recommendation; and, on October 1, 1993, the trial court 
entered an order modifying the original decree, finding that there had been a 
substantial change in circumstances since the original decree had been entered 
in 1987. The trial court placed legal custody, care and control of the child 
with the father and granted visitation rights to the mother. The mother now 
appeals to this court.

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7]      Modifications of 
custody and support provisions of a paternity decree are provided by W.S. 
14-2-113 (1994), which states in part:

(f) The court has 
continuing subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enforce or modify a 
judgment or order made pursuant to W.S. 14-2-101 through 14-2-120. Provisions 
respecting support may be modified only upon a showing of a substantial and 
material change in circumstances.

The modification 
of a paternity decree respecting custody of a child under this statute lies 
within the sound discretion of the trial court.

This court will not 
interfere with the decision of the trial court in child custody questions unless 
there is a procedural error or unless there is shown to be a clear abuse of 
discretion. A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner 
which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances, as is said to mean 
an error of law committed by the court under the 
circumstances.

Deen v. 
Deen, 
774 P.2d 621, 622 (Wyo. 1989) (citing Fanning v. Fanning, 717 P.2d 346, 
349 (Wyo. 1986)); see also Dowdy v. Dowdy, 864 P.2d 439, 440 (Wyo. 1993). 
"In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate 
issue is whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did." 
Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 (Wyo. 1980).

DISCUSSION

[¶8]      The party seeking 
modification of the child custody provisions of a court decree has the burden of 
showing that a change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare has 
occurred after the entry of the initial decree, that the change warrants 
modification of the decree, and that the modification will be in the best 
interests of the children. Goss v. Goss, 780 P.2d 306, 312-13 (Wyo. 
1989), Ayling v. Ayling, 661 P.2d 1054, 1056 (Wyo. 1983). In order to 
resolve the issue of whether there was a showing of material and substantial 
change in circumstances, we examine the record to determine whether the trial 
court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that there was such a 
change.

[¶9]      Since the initial 
decree was entered in 1987, many things have occurred in the child's life. The 
mother has moved the child from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to Lander, Fort 
Washakie, Little America, and Cheyenne, Wyoming. The mother has married, 
divorced, and remarried. The mother's marriage in 1988-89 was tumultuous and 
abusive, involving her husband at the time pulling a loaded shotgun on her and 
pretending to pull the trigger. The mother's husband went to jail, and they were 
subsequently divorced.

[¶10]   Testimony was received by the trial 
court that from time to time the child (at the time eight years old) would 
return home from school and would remain unattended. Testimony was also given 
that the child's reading level is below average. The child was placed in a 
special education program, Chapter One, to rectify this. Further, evidence 
showed that the child's school performance in recent weeks before the 
modification hearing had declined. After hearing additional testimony from the 
child's teachers, the guardian ad litem appointed to represent the child and the 
child's best interests also supported a change of custody.

[¶11]   Based on these factors, the trial 
court found a change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare had 
occurred, that the change warranted modification of the decree, and it was in 
the child's best interest. From the foregoing, the trial court's finding is 
reasonable, as it does not exceed the bounds of reason under the circumstances 
and cannot be said to be an error of law. As we stated in Ayling, 661 
P.2d at 1057:

"Substantial" and 
"material" are words of degree. An exercise of discretion is involved in 
applying them. If the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying these 
words to the matter before it, we cannot second guess its 
decision.

[¶12]   There was sufficient evidence 
before the trial court to conclude that a substantial and material change in 
circumstances had occurred since the 1987 paternity decree had been entered. The 
child's living environment and education are important factors which affect the 
child's best interests. The trial court found that it was in the child's best 
interest for a change in custody because the father will be able to provide a 
more specialized environment for the child. There being sufficient facts in the 
record to support a change in custody, we will not second guess the trial 
court's findings.

CONCLUSION

[¶13]   The trial court did not abuse its 
discretion in finding that a change in circumstances occurred which warranted a 
modification of the original paternity decree.

[¶14]   Affirmed.