Title: RM v. State Dept. of Family Services, Div. of Public Services,

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

RM v. State Dept. of Family Services, Div. of Public Services,1995 WY 39891 P.2d 791Case Number: C-94-6Decided: 03/14/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

RM and 
TGM, Appellants (Respondents),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, DEPARTMENT OF

FAMILY SERVICES, DIVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES; and 
State of Wyoming, ex  rel., STM, a 
minor child, Appellees (Petitioners).

                                  

 

Appeal from District Court, Park County, Hunter 
Patrick, J.

    

     Appellant pro 
se. 

     Richard E. Dixon, 
Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.

 

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

   HANSCUM, D.J.

 

     GOLDEN, Chief 
Justice. 

     [¶1] We review a district court's determination that 
appellant RM is the presumed father of the minor child STM and that the action 
was filed within the applicable limitations period. RM also claims the district 
court failed to consider his right to custody on an equal footing with that of 
the minor child's mother.

 

    [¶2]  We affirm.

 

    [¶3]  The first issue advanced by RM is 
premised on his erroneous reading of governing statutes and case law. He 
contends that the statute of limitations which should apply is that which was in 
place at the time of the child's birth. Our rule is just the opposite. 
Retroactive application of the limitations periods contained in the parentage 
act does not violate applicable constitutional rights. Vigil v. Tafoya, 600 P.2d 721, 723-25 (Wyo. 1979).1 The limitations period which 
applies in this case is expressed in WYO. STAT. § 14-2-104(a)(i) 
(1994):

 

       (a) A 
child, his natural mother or a man presumed to be his father under W.S. 
14-2-102(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) may 
bring action:

 

       (i) At any 
time for the purposes of declaring the existence of the father and child 
relationship presumed under W.S. 
14-2-102(a)(i), (ii) or (iii);

 

   [¶4]     There is no question but that RM is the 
presumed father of the child as defined in WYO. STAT. § 14-2-102(a)(i) (the 
child was conceived while RM was married to the child's mother and was born 
within 300 days after the marriage was terminated). Thus, the matter was 
seasonably and appropriately initiated by the State of Wyoming in the name of the minor child and the 
district court had jurisdiction. The proceedings below, as well as the judgment, 
are consonant with the governing statutes and rules.

 

  [¶5]       RM also asserts that the district 
court failed to consider his right to custody on an equal footing with that of 
the child's mother. We need say little more than to note that the child had been 
in the custody of the mother for over ten years, RM had not met his obligations 
to support the child during that time, and hepresented no evidence which counselled in favor of a 
modification of the established custody arrangements. The record which RM 
brought to this Court can only serve to sustain a conclusion that his rights to 
custody were fully considered by the district court.

 

  [¶6]       The judgment of the district court 
is affirmed in all respects.

   

         

FOOTNOTES

1RM's "confusion" in this regard probably 
arises from his misreading of Vigil, wherein we rejected the rule he 
suggests.