Title: KIMBERLY D. LOPEZ V. ORLANDO V. LOPEZ

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

KIMBERLY D. LOPEZ V. ORLANDO V. LOPEZ2005 WY 88116 P.3d 1098Case Number: 04-232Decided: 08/08/2005
APRIL TERM, A.D. 
2005

 
 
KIMBERLY D. 
LOPEZ,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
ORLANDO V. LOPEZ,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
 
 
Appeal from the DistrictCourtofAlbanyCounty

The Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, 
Judge

 
 
 
 
Representing Appellant:

Sean W. Scoggin of Tiedeken & 
Scoggin, P.C., Cheyenne, 
Wyoming.

 
 
 
 
Representing Appellee:

            
Tony S. Lopez, Laramie, Wyoming.            
            

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

 
 
 
 
BURKE, Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Ms. Lopez 
(Mother) challenges the decree of divorce entered by the district court.  She claims that the district court 
abused its discretion when it awarded Mr. Lopez (Father) primary custody of the 
parties' two children.  We affirm. 

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The parties 
present only one issue for resolution:

 
 
1.         
Did the district court abuse its discretion when it awarded Father 
primary custody of the children? 

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Mother and Father 
were married June 12, 1993.  They 
have two children, an 11 year-old daughter and a 5 year-old son.  Father initiated the divorce 
action.  Mother counterclaimed.  Both parties sought primary custody of 
the children.  After trial, the 
district court issued a decision letter awarding primary custody of the children 
to Father.  A decree of divorce in 
conformity with the decision letter was entered on September 28, 2004.  This appeal followed.  We will set forth additional facts as 
necessary in our discussion.

 
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶4]      Our standard of 
review regarding custody issues is 
well-established:

 
 
Custody matters are committed to the 
sound discretion of the trial court.  
The welfare and needs of the children are to be given paramount 
importance.  We will not overturn 
the decision of the trial court unless we are convinced that it constitutes an 
abuse of discretion or violates some legal principle.  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.  Our review 
includes an evaluation of the evidence to support the trial court's decision, 
and we afford the prevailing party every favorable inference while omitting any 
consideration of evidence presented by the unsuccessful party.  We cannot sustain findings of fact that 
are not supported by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, or against the 
great weight of the evidence.  An 
abuse of discretion is present when a material factor deserving significant 
weight is ignored.  . . . Every case 
requires careful weighing of relevant factors, looking to the unique and 
individual family relationships, in order to reach a resolution that is in the 
best interests of the children.  To 
determine whether a district court has abused its discretion, we must rely upon 
the district court's articulation of the factors that were considered and how 
those factors support its conclusions.

 
 
Donnelly v. Donnelly, 2004 WY 72, ¶19, 
92 P.3d 298, ¶19 (Wyo. 2004).  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶5]      Mother contends 
that the district court abused its discretion in awarding custody to 
Father.  She claims that the 
evidence at trial established that she was the primary caretaker and financial 
provider.  She contends that she is 
in the best position to provide the children with a stable home environment to 
which the children are accustomed.  
She argues that she is the parent who can best fulfill the obligations 
and responsibilities of the custodial parent.  Mother also asserts that the custody 
award impermissibly punished her because she allowed her boyfriend (Mr. Ortega) 
to move in with her and the children shortly after the parties 
separated.

 
 
[¶6]      Father contends 
that the district court did not abuse its discretion.  He asserts that the facts, as determined 
by the district court, support the custody decision.  We agree with 
Father.

 
 
[¶7]      We begin our 
analysis with reference to the record presented for our review.  The record is sparse.  It consists only of the pleadings filed 
by the parties, the court's decision letter and the decree of divorce.  Mother is required to provide a 
sufficient record to this Court to allow proper evaluation of the custody 
decision.  Beeman v. Beeman, 2005 WY 
45, ¶10, 109 P.3d 548, ¶10 (Wyo. 2005).  
Mother has failed to provide a transcript of the trial, and has not 
submitted a statement of the evidence pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03.1  "When this Court does not have a 
properly authenticated transcript before it, it must accept the trial court's 
findings of fact upon which it bases any decisions regarding evidentiary 
issues."  Burt v. Burt, 2002 WY 127, 
¶7, 53 P.3d 101, ¶7 (Wyo. 2002).  
"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."  Beeman, 
¶10.  

 
 
[¶8]      In light of the 
limited record before us, the decision letter necessarily becomes the focus of 
our review.  The letter is fourteen 
pages in length, much of which is devoted to the court's custody 
determination.  The letter is 
detailed and thorough.  It provides 
a cogent analysis and explanation of the decision reached by the district 
court.

 
 
[¶9]      The district 
court identified the appropriate factors for consideration in its custody 
decision as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) (LexisNexis 
2003).2  The court set forth in significant 
detail its factual findings and applied those findings to the appropriate legal 
considerations in reaching its custody 
determination.

 
 
[¶10]   In its decision letter, the 
district court recounted evidence that favored both parties.  The court found that both parents were 
fit and proper parents and that both were willing to accept the responsibility 
of parenting.  The court noted that 
both parents ". . . love their children and both are capable of providing for 
their basic needs."  The court 
recognized that ". . . both parents have demonstrated a willingness to allow the 
other to provide care and this Court is not concerned about the parties' ability 
to facilitate visitation."

 
 
[¶11]   The court identified several 
factors that supported Mother's position.  
It noted that Mother ". . . served as [daughter's] primary caretaker and, 
perhaps, even [son's], for a time."  
The court recognized that Mother was the primary income provider for the 
family and that she was ". . . dedicated to her company."  The court commended Mother for her 
involvement in numerous social activities and community service groups.  According to the court, Mother is a 
positive role model for the children.

 
 
[¶12]   However, the court also identified 
several factors that undermined Mother's position.  Mother's dedication to her business and 
her involvement with social activities and community service groups reduced her 
availability to her children.  
Despite her efforts, Mother's business is on shaky financial ground and 
faces a battle for survival.  The 
court found that Mother ". . . is less able to parent given her hectic work 
demands."  

 
 
[¶13]   The court found that Mother is, at 
times, ". . . inconsiderate, demanding, and judgmental."  Additionally, the evidence established 
that alcohol negatively impacted Mother's relationship with her children.  According to the court, ". . . Ms. Lopez 
has demonstrated a pattern of putting alcohol ahead of her children; there were 
numerous incidents of Ms. Lopez being drunk and its impact on her children's 
lives."

 
 
[¶14]   The court also discussed Mother's 
relationship with Mr. Ortega.  It is 
this discussion that provides the foundation for Mother's contention that she 
was unfairly punished by the court.  
Mother correctly notes that we have previously stated that, "[t]he prime 
judicial objective in dealing with custody of minor children of divorced parents 
is to serve the best interest of the childnot to punish or reward one parent 
for real or supposed derelictions."  
Curless v. Curless, 708 P.2d 426, 430 (Wyo. 1985).  However, we do not find any support in 
the decision letter for Mother's claim of 
punishment.

 
 
[¶15]   Mother met Mr. Ortega in June, 
2003.  He moved in with Mother and 
the children in August, 2003.  In 
its discussion regarding custody, the court commented upon the impact on the 
children of Mother's decision to allow Mr. Ortega to move into her 
home:

 
 
            
The Court is also concerned about Ms. Lopez's decision to move Mr. Ortega 
into her home.  In modern times, 
concern about adults living together outside of wedlock is outdated; the Court 
does not worry itself with the fact that Ms. Lopez and Mr. Ortega choose to 
cohabitate, as did Mr. and Ms. Lopez before their marriage.  However, Ms. Lopez apparently moved Mr. 
Ortega into her home a mere eight (8) weeks (or less) after meeting him.  The Court is concerned about the impact 
this decision had on the children (who had recently gone through the upheaval of 
having their father move out) and Ms. Lopez's apparent lack of consideration of 
the impact of this decision on her children.

 
 
In light of the absence of an 
evidentiary record, we must assume that evidence was presented which supports 
the district court's findings.3  The concerns expressed by the court 
relate to the welfare of the children and not punishment of Mother. 

 
 
[¶16]   The court also identified factors 
which it considered regarding Father.  
The court was impressed with Father's relationship with his children: 

 
 
            
In the most recent years, Mr. Lopez has assumed a more fundamental 
parental role.  He is the parent 
that generally provides patience and nurturing for the children; he is the 
parent that "takes them places" and "does things with them."  So, while both parents have a strong 
relationship with the children, Mr. Lopez is better able to attend to the 
children's emotional needs.  This 
Court reiterates that both these parents are fit and competent; both are willing 
to accept the responsibilities of parenting.  However, Ms. Lopez is less able to 
parent given her hectic work demands.  
Mr. Lopez is generally the parent with whom the children communicate and 
interact.

 
 
[¶17]   The court's review of the evidence 
was not entirely favorable to Father.  
The court noted Father's intermittent employment history and lack of 
financial support for the family.  
The court expressed concern about Father's ability to financially provide 
for the children:

 
 
Mr. Lopez has shown himself a 
less-than-reliable income provider.  
The Court has some concerns about this area of responsibility, which has 
been alleviated only by the fact that Ms. [sic] Lopez has completed his college 
degree; has remained employed, at least part time, over the past year; and 
appears fully cognizant of the fact that he may have to set his dreams aside in 
order to be sure he can financially support his children.  This Court has not been impressed with 
Mr. Lopez's lack of financial support for his children  over the past several 
years, and since the filing of the complaint for divorce, in particular.  That said, the Court recognizes that 
both parties have matured in financial matters and this factor essentially is a 
"wash" for each.

 
 
[¶18]   Mother's contention that she should 
be awarded custody because she is in the best position to provide a stable home 
environment in which the children are accustomed, rests upon the reality that an 
award of custody to Father will require that the children relocate to California.  This issue was addressed directly by the 
district court:

 
 
The Court has carefully considered Ms. 
Lopez's argument that Cheyenne is the children's "home."  True, the children are accustomed to 
their current house and neighborhood; [daughter] has friends at school and is 
involved in activities.  However, 
she has friends and activities in California as well.  Given the strength of the children's 
relationships with Mr. Lopez and this Court's belief that he can best meet their 
emotional and intellectual needs at this time, the Court concludes that a 
transition to a new home or school would not be burdensome or unwarranted; in 
fact, it may be welcomed.  Further, 
the children are well accustomed to their grandparent's home in California, where they 
will be residing with their father and grandparents.  They already have friends and other 
relatives in the area; they already are involved in activities such as swimming 
and horseback riding.  Thus, while 
Ms. Lopez, no doubt, wishes to strengthen her relationship with her children, 
the Court believes this can best be accomplished through visitation, with Mr. 
Lopez serving as the children's primary caretaker.

 
 
[¶19]   The district court was faced with a 
difficult decision.  The court 
weighed the evidence, applied the law and determined that primary custody should 
be awarded to Father.  Mother has 
presented us with no claim of factual error, nor has she asserted any legal 
error, other than her claim of punishment.  
In essence, she urges us to reweigh the evidence and asks us to reach a 
different result than the trial court.  
We cannot do so.

 
 
[¶20]   Even if we were inclined to agree 
with Mother's position, we cannot retry this case on appeal or substitute our 
judgment for that of the district court.  
Drake v. McCulloh, 2002 WY 50, ¶18, 43 P.3d 578, ¶18 (Wyo. 2002); Love v. 
Love, 851 P.2d 1283, 1286 (Wyo. 1993).  To show an abuse of discretion, "[i]t is 
not enough for an appellant to summarize alleged errors and to give [her] views 
of the import of the evidence."  
Beeman, ¶10.  "Deference must 
be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the 
witnesses, and a reviewing court will not set aside the court's findings merely 
because it might have reached a different result."  Drake, ¶18.   We find no abuse of discretion and 
affirm the district court's custody determination.

 

FOOTNOTES

1W.R.A.P. 3.03 
states:

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.

2Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) 
provides:

(a)                 
In 
granting a divorce, separation or annulment of a marriage or upon the 
establishment of paternity pursuant to W.S. 14-2-401 through 14-2-907, the court 
may make by decree or order any disposition of the children that appears most 
expedient and in the best interests of the children.  In determining the best interests of the 
child, the court shall consider, but is not limited to, the following 
factors:

(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.

3The decision letter reflects that 
the district court, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, met with the 
daughter in chambers with counsel present.  
The court noted that it considered the daughter's input and opinion in 
reaching its decision.  The 
daughter's testimony was not included in the record presented for our 
review.