Title: Mulkey-Yelverton v. Blevins

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Mulkey-Yelverton v. Blevins1994 WY 124884 P.2d 41Case Number: 93-235Decided: 11/09/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
Martha Elaine 
MULKEY-YELVERTON, f/k/a Martha Elaine Smith,

Appellant 
(Defendant/Petitioner),

v.

Richard BLEVINS, f/k/a 
Richard Smith,

Appellee 
(Plaintiff/Respondent).

 

Appeal from District 
Court, Uinta County, John D. Troughton, J.

 

Representing 
Appellant:

John A. Thomas, 
Evanston.

Representing 
Appellee:

Roger Cowan of Harris, 
Morton and Cowan, P.C., Evanston.

 

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE,* MACY,** and TAYLOR, 
JJ.

TAYLOR, Justice.

[¶1]      In this appeal, 
the mother of a minor child challenges the denial of a petition for modification 
of custody. Asserting that the district court abused its discretion, the mother 
maintains that the child's preference to live with her mother instead of her 
father was not given appropriate weight. The district court ruled, despite the 
child's strong preference, that there was no material or substantial change in 
circumstances warranting a modification of legal custody.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant, the 
mother, presents the following issue:

Whether the district 
court, though apparently contemplating the preference of [KB], failed in its 
final order to acknowledge and give the appropriate weight to her wishes thereby 
abusing its discretion and entering an order which is clearly erroneous, 
manifestly wrong, and totally against the evidence?

[¶4]      Appellee, the 
father, rephrases the same issue:

Whether considering all 
the evidence as a whole there were any changes in circumstances regarding 
custody of [KB] which the trial court failed to recognize or ignored thereby 
abusing its discretion.

II. 
FACTS

[¶5]      Richard Blevins, 
formerly known as Richard Smith (hereinafter Richard), and Martha Elaine 
Mulkey-Yelverton, formerly known as Martha Elaine Smith (hereinafter Martha), 
were married on September 25, 1976. During their marriage, Richard and Martha 
had two children, a son, TB, and a daughter, KB. Richard and Martha divorced in 
1982. Richard was awarded legal custody of the two minor children.

[¶6]      On August 11, 
1992, Martha filed a petition to modify the divorce decree, seeking custody of 
KB. Martha asserted KB's desire to live with her was one of several alleged 
substantial and material changes of circumstances justifying a modification of 
custody. The district court found that it was in KB's best interest to remain in 
the legal custody of her father. The district court, however, clarified 
ambiguous visitation provisions set out in the original divorce decree and 
established a child support obligation to be paid by Martha.

[¶7]      On May 6, 1993, 
Martha filed a petition to modify the amended divorce decree, again seeking 
custody of KB. Martha asserted KB's continuing desire to live with her as 
support for the change in legal custody. Testimony at a hearing on the petition 
indicated that KB's desire to live with her mother was obsessive. KB called her 
mother several times a day, often talking to her for hours at a time. Declining 
scholastic performance was also attributed to the time and effort KB exerted in 
establishing a stronger relationship with her mother.

[¶8]      Testimony at the 
hearing also indicated that in the ten years following her divorce, Martha had 
made little effort to maintain a relationship with her children. She contacted 
KB briefly in 1986, but was otherwise absent from her life. Richard maintained 
that given Martha's past history with KB, a change in custody would not be in 
KB's best interests. Richard also testified that a change in custody would have 
a detrimental effect on the close relationship KB had with her older 
brother.

[¶9]      After reviewing 
all of the evidence, the district court determined that Martha had failed to 
establish that a material change of circumstances had occurred. In its opinion 
letter, the district court noted KB's intense desire to live with her mother and 
strongly recommended that Richard allow KB to live with Martha for a year. On 
September 9, 1993, the district court filed an order denying the petition to 
modify legal custody.

III. 
DISCUSSION

[¶10]   The district court exercises broad 
discretion in decisions involving the modification of custody. Love v. 
Love, 851 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990)). "[W]e will not interfere with the decision of the 
district court unless there is a procedural error or unless there is shown to be 
a clear abuse of discretion." Ayling v. Ayling, 661 P.2d 1054, 1056 (Wyo. 
1983). "Abuse of discretion occurs when a court exceeds the bounds of reason or 
commits an error of law." Combs v. Sherry-Combs, 865 P.2d 50, 55 (Wyo. 
1993).

[¶11]   Martha attempts to identify a 
dichotomy between the district court's recommendation to Richard that KB be 
allowed to live with her mother for a time and the district court's decision 
denying a modification of custody. Martha argues that the district court 
recognized in its opinion letter that there was a distinct possibility of harm 
to KB's well-being unless she was allowed to live with her mother. The district 
court stated:

[T]he Court would 
strongly recommend to [Richard] that he allow his daughter to live with her 
mother, at least for this year. [KB] is an endearing and remarkable individual. 
Her obvious intelligence, good sense, sweetness and maturity was exceeded only 
by her sorrowful yearning for her mother. This is a yearning so intense as to be 
unhealthy, presenting the distinct possibility of material harm if not 
satisfied. If [KB] were allowed to live with her mother, the Court is confident 
of her abilities to handle the situation.

Despite this 
recommendation, Martha contends the district court failed to acknowledge KB's 
strong preference in deciding that there was no material change in 
circumstances. We disagree.

[¶12]   The party seeking to modify the 
provisions of a child custody decree bears the burden of demonstrating that a 
substantial or material change of circumstances has occurred subsequent to the 
entry of the existing decree. Roberts v. Roberts, 816 P.2d 1293, 1296 
(Wyo. 1991). The requested modification of custody must also be in the best 
interests of the child. Goss v. Goss, 780 P.2d 306, 312-13 (Wyo. 1989). A 
child's unequivocal preference to live with a particular parent is a factor to 
be considered, but the expression of a preference is not conclusive. 
Love, 851 P.2d  at 1289-90 (quoting Yates v. Yates, 702 P.2d 1252, 
1255 (Wyo. 1985)).

[¶13]   We hold that the district court 
followed proper procedure and gave serious consideration to KB's expressed 
preference to live with her mother. Love, 851 P.2d  at 1290. The district 
court conducted a lengthy examination of KB to determine her preference. At the 
time, KB was fourteen years old. She answered the questions carefully and 
revealed her feelings to the court and her parents. As a result of that 
examination, the district court issued a strong recommendation that Richard 
permit KB to live with her mother for a time. The district court expressed its 
confidence that KB would benefit from such a period of extended 
visitation.

[¶14]   In reaching its decision to deny 
the petition, the district court also considered testimony about other 
influences on KB's welfare and whether there had been a substantial change in 
those circumstances. The district court considered KB's maturity and her 
motivation for wanting to live with her mother. Furthermore, the district court 
addressed concerns about Martha's past neglect in maintaining a relationship 
with her daughter. Finally, the district court considered the undesirability of 
separating KB from her brother. In evaluating these various factors, the 
district court determined that Martha had failed to establish that a substantial 
change in circumstances had occurred. Roberts, 816 P.2d  at 
1296.

[¶15]   The district court has many factors 
to consider in making its decision regarding custody of a minor child. See Wyo. 
Stat. § 20-2-113(a) (1994). The person granted legal custody is charged with a 
responsibility for the care, control and maintenance of that child at all times; 
in other words, serving the best interests of the child. Curless v. 
Curless, 708 P.2d 426, 430 (Wyo. 1985). Even when another person has 
physical custody of the child for a time, the person with legal custody remains 
responsible for the consequential decisions affecting the child's health and 
welfare, such as which school to attend. Continuity in legal custody, therefore, 
helps to assure a stable environment even when other lifestyle changes may be 
taking place.

[¶16]   The district court had a difficult 
decision to make. The impassioned plea of KB to live with her mother had to be 
balanced against the security and guidance that had resulted in her capable 
upbringing. The district court arrived at a decision in the best interests of 
KB. Goss, 780 P.2d  at 312-13. The district court strongly recommended to 
Richard that KB be allowed to live with her mother for a time to permit their 
relationship to flourish. However, even if KB is allowed to live with her 
mother, in accord with the district court's recommendation, legal custody would 
remain with Richard so that continuity in KB's welfare is assured. The district 
court determined that KB's desire to live with her mother did not constitute a 
material change in circumstances. This decision is one which the district court, 
hearing the facts and observing the witnesses, is in the best position to make. 
Our review does not disclose any procedural error or abuse of discretion. 
Ayling, 661 P.2d  at 1056.

[¶17]   Richard also requests that he be 
awarded attorney's fees and costs for this appeal. This court may award 
attorney's fees "[i]f the court certifies there was no reasonable cause for the 
appeal * * *." W.R.A.P. 10.05. Awards of fees and damages under W.R.A.P. 10.05 
are not appropriate where a discretionary ruling of the district court is 
questioned. Smith v. Smith, 863 P.2d 624, 626 (Wyo. 1993); James S. 
Jackson Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 677 P.2d 835, 839 (Wyo. 1984). Richard's request 
for attorney's fees is denied. Richard is entitled, as a successful appellee, to 
recover the cost for publication of his brief. W.R.A.P. 10.05.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶18]   A child's preference to live with 
one parent is a factor to be considered in petitions to modify custody; however, 
it is not dispositive. The district court must weigh all relevant evidence to 
determine whether a material change in circumstances has occurred. The district 
court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for modification of 
custody.

[¶19]   Affirmed. 

 

FOOTNOTES

*Retired July 
6, 1994.

**Chief 
Justice at time of oral argument.