### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 2 1 WY 9 8

APRIL TERM, A.D. 20 2 1

August 31 , 2021

TIMOTHY S. O ’ ROAKE,

Appellant (Respondent),

v.

STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DIVISION,

Appell ee (Petitioner)

,

and

REGINA G. RIDGWAY,

Appellee (Respondent). S

- 21

- 0017

Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County

The Hono r ab le Bill Simpson , Judge

Representing Appellant: Letitia Abromats, Letitia C. Abromats, PC, Greybull, Wyoming

.

Re p r e senting Appell ee State of Wyomi ng, ex rel. Department of Family Services, Child Support Enforcement D ivision: Bridget Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Misha Westby , Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera * , S en ior Assistant Attorney General ; Wendy S. Ross

, Senior Assistan t Attorney General

.Representing Appellee Regina G. Ridgway: Regina G. R idgway, p ro se. No appearance.

Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS † , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

* Order Allowing Withdrawal of Counsel entered August 9, 2021

. † Chi ef Justice at time of brief

- only conference

.

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court B uilding, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of a n y ty p ographical or other formal errors s o that correction may be made befor e final publication in the permanent volume.1 GRAY , Justice.

[¶1] Timothy S. O’Roake ( Father ) challenges a child support order requiring him to

p ay post

- majority support for his child, ZAO, while ZAO is attend ing college

. H e asserts
the district court abused its discretion when it found ZAO ’s phenylketo nuria ( PKU )

render s him disabled and in capable of self

- support . F ather also claims the district court
violated Father’ s due process rights when it addressed post

- majority sup port under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 2

- 204(a)(i ) when no claim for po st

- majority support was ple a d ed

. W e

re verse and remand.

ISSUE S

[¶2] The dispositive issue i s :

Did the district cou rt abuse its discretion when it ordered

post

- majorit y s upport? 1

F ACTS

[¶3] Father and Regina G. Ridgway (Mother) are the parents of ZAO, who was born in

December 2002. Mother is ZAO’s primary custod ian. Father’s ch ild sup port obligation

was originally estab lished in a 2 004 Oregon court orde r

. The Oregon support order was registered in Wyoming after both parents relocated here. 2 In 2014, Wyoming’s Department of F amily Services

, C hild Su pport Enforcement Division (DFS) successfully petition ed to mo dify chi l d support

.

[¶4] At issue is DFS ’ s second motion to modify support filed in May 2020. A court

com missioner held a n unrep o rted h earing on the motion. 3 The district court adopted t he

1 Father also contends t hat the district court violate d his right to due process by order ing post

- majority

sup port after ZAO graduated from high sc h ool when h e had no notice o f DFS ’ s claim in that reg ard. Although Father ’ s con c e rn may be legitimat e, w e do no t reach his al leged deficien cies in notice because

w e reverse and remand on other gr ounds. See Int. of RR , 2 021 WY 85, ¶ 77

, 492 P.3d 246

, 266 ( Wyo.

2021 ) ; In Int. of ECH

, 2018 WY 83, ¶ 20, 423 P.3d 295, 302 (Wyo. 2018) ( f inding juvenile court v iolat ed appellant ’ s stat utory rights and therefore dec lining to a ddre ss due process claim); see also Wilson v. Bd. of Cnty . Comm ’ rs of Cnty . of Teton , 2 007 WY 42, ¶ 1 4, 153 P.3d 917, 922 (Wyo. 2007) (Court will not
address constitu t i onal issues if it is ab le to resolve the case o n other grounds).

2 Father now resides back i n Oregon.

3 B ased on the record be fore us, w e can not determine w hether the district court ’ s reliance on the court
commission er compli e d with statutory limitations

. See BAC v. BL M , 2001 WY 83, 30 P.3d 573 (Wyo.

2001 ). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5

- 3

- 307(a)(v) requ ires a commissioner to “take evidence and make findings, and repo rt the same to the district court.” No such report appears in the record. BAC requires that the district court independently review the evidence and findings to reach an informed decision. BAC

, ¶ 15

, 30 P.3d at 578. See also Harris v. Harris

, 948 P.2d 405, 40 7 (Wyo. 1997) (“[A] district court must2 court comm issioner’ s recommended order

. In its decision letter

, t he district court found that child support should be modified

. The court calculated Father’ s pre s umptive child

support to be $7 85 per month. Th e c ourt found t hat ZAO suffers from PKU, a metabolic

dis order that requires a special die t

, Mother spends $750 per mon th fo r food and mil k necessary to treat ZAO ’s PK U

, and an upward deviation to child s uppor t of $375 p er

mon th ( hal f the cost of ZAO’s PKU diet ) appropriate

. The district cour t ordered Father

to pay monthly child support of $1,160 an d to contin ue pay in g support of $375 per month after high school “ as long as th e child is e nrolled full

- time in college.”

[¶5] Father appealed

, submitt ing a Statement of Record P ursuant to W.R.A. P. 3.0 3.

T he dist rict court settled the record, adopting Father’s statemen t “ to the exte n t it is not

inconsistent with the facts set forth in the decision letter and the final order.” 4

I. Did the dis trict court abuse its discret i on when it ordered p ost

- majo rity support?

A. Standard of Review

[¶6] Child support determin a t i ons “ are le f t to the dis trict c ourt ’ s sound discretion.” Kimzey v. Kimzey , 2020 WY 52, ¶ 13, 461 P.3d 1229, 1235 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Bag ley

v. Ba gley , 2013 WY 126, ¶ 6, 311 P .3d 141, 143 ( Wyo. 2 013))

. “ Therefore, we review

the distric t court ’ s order o n child suppo r t for an abu se of d iscretion. ” Kimzey

, ¶ 13, 461

P.3d at 1235 ; Stevens v. Stevens

, 2014 WY 23, ¶ 8, 318 P.3d 802, 805

– 06 (Wyo . 2014)

. “A court does not a b use its discretion u nless it acts i n a manner which exceeds the

bounds of reason unde r t he circumst a nces.” Kimze y , ¶ 1 3, 461 P.3d at 1235 (quoting

Stevens , ¶ 8, 318 P.3d at 806).

B. Analysis

[¶7] A parent ’ s legal obligation for the support of his child “contin u es past the age of

m ajority in cases w here the [child is]: (i) Mentally or physically d isabled and t hereby incap able o f self

- support

. . . . ” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 2

- 204(a) (i) ( LexisNexis 2021 ).

independent ly rev iew the evidence de novo and issue an order based upon that independent review

. ”) ; see also May v. May , 945 P.2d 1189 , 1192 (Wy o. 1997) (“ [ T ] he record should clearly indicate that the district court has independently reviewed the evidence and findings and reached its de cision accordingly.” (quoting Foster v. Foster , 7 68 P.2d 1038, 1042 (Wyo. 1989 ) ) )

. Here, compliance with the dir ecti ve in

BA C and May would seem to be impossible given that no tr anscript or other record of proceedings w as availabl e to review. As t he p arties did not raise this issue, we do not address it

. 4 We are a t a loss to see how the district court could

, as a practical matter

, settle the record of a case in

which it did not conduct the evidentiary hearing and where no transcript or electro nic recording of the

court commissioner ’ s hearing was ava ilable. See supra note 3

.3 [¶8] In its decision le tter, the di strict court made the followi n g r elev ant findings: “[T]he

minor child suffers from a menta l or physical disorder, p h e nylketonuria disorder, an d is

u nable to support himself due to that disorder. It would be unjust and inappropriate for [Mother] to continu e to pay all the related expe n ses wit hout contribu tion fro m [Father ] .”

The district court ordere d Fat her to co nti nue to pay half of the dietary cos ts ($375 per month) after high school “so long as the child is enroll ed full

- tim e in college.”

[¶9] Father argue s t hat the district court abused its discretion in ordering pos t

- majority

supp o r t b ecause th ere was no evidence at the hearing indicating that ZAO was mentally or physically disabled or that he was incapable o f self

- support. See P aul ing v. P auling

, 837 P.2d 1073, 1080 (Wyo. 1992) (concluding the district co u r t c ould not ord er post

majority suppo rt where “no evidence was introduced concerning the dau ghter’s physical or mental inability to become emancipated ”). 5

[¶10] T he record before th e Court do es not establish that the district court’s findings

wer e unsupported b y t he eviden ce at the hearing of this mat ter

. Nonethel ess , we conclude t he district court a bu sed its discretion

. Our concern stems from the

inconsistencies evident in the cou rt’s findings and conclusions

.

[¶11] T he district court found ZAO incapable of self

- s u p port b ecause of hi s PKU but

ord er ed F ather to p ay for ZAO’s diet ary n eeds only if ZAO is e nrolle d full

- time in college

. Ei th er ZAO is cap ab le of self

- sup port, or he is not. In conditioning post

majority support on college atten dance, th e district cour t ’ s ord er contra dicts its finding

that ZA O is in ca pable of self

- sup port

. Th i s Court cannot r econcile the inconsi stency.

[¶12] C ourt s will reverse and remand orders to correct intern al inconsistencies

. See,

e.g. , In re Soran , 2014 WY 28, ¶ 20, 319 P .3d 109 , 11 5

– 16 (Wyo. 201 4) ( s tating th at

5 Father’s W.R.A.P. 3.03 statem ent, con tains the following facts regar ding ZAO’s PKU:

• Z AO has PKU , w hic h requires a sp ecial di et.

• Z AO ’ s diet is not covered by i nsurance.

• Z A O’s diet costs $700 t o $80 0 p er month.

• ZAO applied to She ridan College and hopes to get a busin ess degree.

• ZAO plays f ootball and is i nvolve d in Futu re Farme rs o f America.

• On cross

- examination

, Fath e r testified he d id no t kno w th e following:

o What is in ZAO’s 50 [4] plan

.

o ZAO ge ts extra time to take tests

.

o ZAO was f ired from his resta urant job be caus e of an inabili ty to co nce ntr ate when PKU

is h igh

.

o If ZAO attends Sheridan C ollege, he will get free tutor i ng

.

o ZAO sits the benc h on the foot ball team

.

o ZAO “had Ds and Fs and w as bare ly passing” during the last three year s of high school

. The distric t court adopted Father’s W.R.A. P

. st a tement “to the extent it is not inconsistent with the f a cts
set forth in t he d ecisi on lette r and the final order

. ”4 “ [ g] iven the inconsistencies in the district court’s findings, we are left with a firm

conviction that the court erred ” and r evers i n g and remand in g “ for entry of a distribution order that is supported by findings sufficient t o show applicati on of the appropriate burden of proo f ” ) ; Bo row ski v. F errer , 255 So. 3d 440

, 4 41 (Fla. D ist. Ct. App. 2018) (reversing an d remanding order that contained interna l incons istency) ; Mitchell v. XO

Co mmc ’ns , 966 So. 2 d 489, 4 90 (Fla. Dist. Ct. A pp. 2007) (“ Because the

. . . final order

is inconsistent i n its findings of fact and conclu sions of law, we reverse th e final order

and remand for additional proceedings.” (em phasis omitted ) ); Matter of Worker ’ s Comp. Claim of Vinson , 2020 WY 126, ¶ 34, 4 73 P .3d 299, 311 (Wyo. 2020) (finding that

O AH ’ s inconsist ent d ecision was “ ar bitr a ry and ca pricious ” ) ; Courtney v. Cou rtney

, 550

S.W.3d 522 , 52 7 (Mo

. Ct. App. 20 1 7 ) ( “ A judgme nt based on inconsistent and ambiguous findings does no t allow for ad equ ate app e llate re view and must be reversed

and remanded

. ” ( quoting McGahan v. McGahan , 237 S.W.3d 265 , 272 (Mo . Ct. App.

2007 ) ) ) ; Carlson v. Carlson

, 2011 ND 168, ¶ 19, 802 N.W.2d 436, 443 (reversing and remanding for clarification o f conflicted findings) ; an d In r e Marriage of Maninger

, 106

S .W.3d 4, 12 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) ( “ We will not speculate on [ th e rul ing ] by sif ting through [ the inconsistenci es ]

. ” )

.

[¶13] Given the inconsistencies bet ween the district court’s findings and conclusions , we are left with a firm con v i cti on that the cour t abused it s discretion

.

C

ON C

LUSION

[¶14] W e revers e and remand to the distr ict court for further proceedings to determine

whether ZAO ’ s PKU renders him “ [ m ] en tally or physically disabled and thereby incap able of self

- support ” under Wyo. S t at. Ann. § 14

- 2

- 204( a) ( i)

.