Title: FRANK W. SYMINGTON V. BANU E. SYMINGTON

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

FRANK W. SYMINGTON V. BANU E. SYMINGTON2007 WY 154167 P.3d 658Case Number: S-07-0044Decided: 09/25/2007
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 
FRANK W. 
SYMINGTON,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
BANU E. 
SYMINGTON,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofSweetwaterCounty

The Honorable Nena R. 
James, Judge

 
 
Representing Appellant:

Robert J. 
O'Neil, Gillette, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellee:

Mark W. 
Gifford, Casper, Wyoming.

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]         
Appellant, Frank 
Symington (Father), appeals the district court's order declining jurisdiction of 
a child custody dispute pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307 on the basis that 
Idaho provided a more appropriate forum for resolution of the dispute.  We affirm.

 
 
ISSUE

 
 

[¶2]         
Father presents a single 
issue: "Did the trial court properly decline to exercise further child custody 
jurisdiction?"

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]         
Mother and Father married 
in 1982, in Pennsylvania.  During their marriage, the couple had 
two children. They moved to Rock 
Springs, Wyoming, where 
Mother filed for divorce in June 2004.  
In January 2005, while the divorce was pending, Mother moved with the 
children to Idaho.  
Father moved to Gillette, Wyoming, where he now resides.  The district court granted the divorce 
in May 2005.  Mother was awarded 
custody of the children, subject to Father's visitation 
rights.

 
 

[¶4]         
Disputes over visitation 
erupted shortly after the decree was entered.  In June 2005, Mother and the Guardian ad Litem (GAL) filed petitions 
seeking to modify visitation.  Prior 
to a hearing on the petitions, both Mother and the GAL filed motions asking the 
district court to decline jurisdiction over further proceedings pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307.  Both the GAL 
and Mother contended that Idaho now provided a 
more appropriate forum for resolution of the dispute because the children were 
in school in Idaho, they had friends there, and their 
counselor was in that area.  The 
effect of all these contacts, Mother claimed, was that witnesses and evidence 
about the children's well-being was all in Idaho, and it would be in the children's best interests to 
transfer the case to an Idaho court.  The district court denied the motion in 
January 2006.

 
 

[¶5]         
Subsequently, in August 
2006, the GAL filed a motion seeking to be relieved of her duties because she 
had accepted new employment as in-house counsel precluding her further 
involvement as a GAL in this case.  
The GAL's testimony during the hearing on her motion to withdraw sheds 
illumination on the need for an actively engaged GAL.  She testified: 

 
 
This case has taken an 
inordinate amount of time over the course of the last two years.  It's monopolized my law office largely 
as far as time of not only traveling, but the amount of time to respond to and 
review documents.  This isn't a 
file.  It is a two banker, huge 
banker, boxes case that has taken a lot of time of several counselors, 
psychologists, my time, and it has grown.  
I am now out of private practice, but while I was in private practice it 
definitely monopolized my time.  And 
it definitely monopolized my emotional investment in practice.  It was a case riddled with perpetual and 
still ongoing accusations.  They 
never ceased.  Perpetual ongoing 
correspondence, discovery, depositions, hearings.  It has been a case where you look back 
and you find very little time at which these parties have been at peace and 
which this case has been at peace.  
There's always been something on the plate, on the burner, to the Court, 
something to be set for hearing, something pending 
hearing.

 
 

[¶6]         
In response to the GAL's 
petition to withdraw, Mother filed another motion urging the district court to 
decline jurisdiction.  Mother 
incorporated her prior claim that Idaho was the 
better forum, and additionally asserted that the need to appoint a new GAL made 
it an appropriate time to transfer the case to Idaho.  
At the hearing, the district court agreed, and decided to decline 
jurisdiction on the basis that Idaho provided a more appropriate forum pursuant 
to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307.  
Father appeals that decision.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
Standard 
of Review

 
 

[¶7]           
"In child custody 
proceedings, the determination of whether to exercise jurisdiction or to defer 
to the courts of another state is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."  Steele v. Neeman, 6 P.3d 649, 653 (Wyo. 
2000).  If the record includes 
sufficient evidence to support the district court's exercise of discretion, we 
will defer to that court and affirm its decision.  Ritter v. Ritter, 989 P.2d 109, 113 
(Wyo. 1999); 
Prickett v. Prickett, 2007 WY 153, ¶ 
17, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (Wyo. 2007).

 
 
Analysis

 
 

[¶8]         
Father contends that the 
district court should not have declined jurisdiction.  The court made its decision pursuant to 
the inconvenient forum provisions of Wyoming's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction 
and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which provides:

 
 

(a)               
A court of this state 
which has jurisdiction under this act to make a child custody determination may 
decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an 
inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is 
a more appropriate forum.  The issue 
of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court's own 
motion, or request of another court.

 
 

(b)               
Before determining 
whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider 
whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise 
jurisdiction.  For this purpose, the 
court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all 
relevant factors, including:

 
 

(i)                 
Whether domestic violence 
has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best 
protect the parties and the child;

 
 

(ii)               
The length of time the 
child has resided outside this state;

 
 

(iii)             
The distance between the 
court in this state and the court in the state that would assume 
jurisdiction;

 
 

(iv)             
The relative financial 
circumstances of the parties;

 
 

(v)               
Any agreement of the 
parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

 
 

(vi)             
The nature and location 
of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony 
of the child;

 
 

(vii)           
The ability of the court 
of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to 
present the evidence; and

 
 

(viii)         
The familiarity of the 
court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending 
litigation.

 
 

(c)               
If a court of this state 
determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is 
a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a 
child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and 
may impose any other condition the court considers just and 
proper.

 
 

(d)               
A court of this state may 
decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this act if a child custody 
determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while 
still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other 
proceeding.

 
 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307 
(LexisNexis 2007).  The district 
court must consider "all relevant factors," not just those articulated in the 
statute.  See National Conference of Commissioners 
on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Child 
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act § 207 cmt. (1997) ("The list is not 
meant to be exclusive.").  

 
 

[¶9]         
Here, the district court 
made several explicit oral findings at the hearing.  In particular, it gave significant 
weight to the fact that a new GAL would soon have to be appointed.  The district judge 
explained:

 
 
I believe two things are 
different.  One, more time has 
passed, and two, we're going to have the appointment of another guardian ad 
litem which most appropriately, I believe, should be done in the State of 
Idaho.  Based on that, my consideration of all 
the other matters which were presented to the Court when I heard the original 
motion and the passage of time, I am declining to continue to hear this case at 
this time and ordering that the case be transferred to Idaho.  Not to give it a fresh look or anything 
like that, because I don't think that's a valid reason for transferring a case, 
but because I believe that that's the most appropriate forum at this time under 
these circumstances, especially in view of the withdrawal of the present 
guardian ad litem and the necessity of the appointment of a new one. 

 
 
The evidence established 
that the children had lived in Idaho for nearly 
two years, during which time they had attended Idaho schools and seen a counselor there.  It reflected that the GAL had often been 
limited to telephone conversations with the children, rather than face-to-face 
meetings, because of the distance involved.  Moreover, Father lived in Gillette, in 
northeastern Wyoming, so that the district 
court in SweetwaterCounty, in southwestern Wyoming, was no longer a 
convenient forum for either party.  
There is sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision to 
defer to the jurisdiction of the Idaho court.

 
 

[¶10]    
Father claims that he was 
not responsible for circumstances in Idaho changing over time and that the GAL 
withdrew for employment reasons, not because of Father's conduct.  Both claims miss the mark because the 
decision to decline jurisdiction is not based on fault.  Rather, it is a determination of which 
forum is more appropriate.  The 
changed circumstances, whether Father caused them or not, justified the 
conclusion that Idaho had become the more appropriate forum to 
resolve child custody and visitation issues.  Similarly, the reason for the GAL's 
withdrawal is irrelevant.  The fact 
that appointment of a new GAL was necessary and that an Idaho court could appoint a GAL located in the 
jurisdiction where the children reside support the district court's decision 
that Idaho had 
become the more appropriate forum.

 
 

[¶11]    
Father also asserts that 
the district court should not reverse its prior denials of Mother's motions to 
decline jurisdiction.  Situations 
change over time, however, and the changes may lead the court to a different 
decision.  Indeed, changes like 
those that occurred here are one of the reasons that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-307 
is necessary.  By the time Mother 
filed her most recent motion, the one now under review, the children had lived 
in Idaho 
longer, more of their school and counseling records had accumulated there, and 
the majority of witnesses with pertinent information were there.  Combining these factors with the need to 
appoint another GAL, we are unable to find any abuse of discretion by the 
district court in declining jurisdiction.

 
 

[¶12]    
Affirmed.