Case Name: SEG, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. GDK, Appellee (Defendant)
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming
Jurisdiction: Wyoming
Decision Date: 2007-12-18
Citations: 173 P.3d 395
Docket Number: No. S-07-0075
Parties: SEG, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. GDK, Appellee (Defendant).
Judges: Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 173
Pages: 395–398

Head Matter:
2007 WY 203
SEG, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. GDK, Appellee (Defendant).
No. S-07-0075.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Dec. 18, 2007.
Representing Appellant: M. Jalie Mei-necke and Alex H. Sitz III of Meinecke & Sitz, LLC, Cody, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Meinecke.
Representing Appellee: Ethelyn Boak of Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

Opinion:
VOIGT, Chief Justice.
[T1] Mother, SEG, contests the district court's refusal to terminate the parental rights of Father, GDK, to the parties' minor child, KGK. We determine that the district court's order is not an appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05, and we therefore dismiss this appeal.
ISSUE
[12] The dispositive issue in this case is whether the district court's Order on Termination of Parental Rights is an appealable order from which this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.
FACTS
[T3] Mother petitioned for termination of Father's parental rights to KGK on November 17, 2005. Mother's petition also requested back child support and future child support. Father responded to the petition, and counterclaimed for visitation. The district court held a hearing on the petition and counterclaim and issued an order, in which it concluded that Mother had failed to prove the statutory requirements for terminating Father's rights. The court also found that the parties had not presented adequate evidence regarding child support or visitation and suggested further hearings on those issues. Mother appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{4] Under W.R.A.P. 1.04(a) this Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a judgment or from an appealable order. Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law to be reviewed de novo. Steele v. Neeman, 6 P.3d 649, 653 (Wyo.2000).
DISCUSSION
[T5] WRAP. 1.04(a) states "(al judgment rendered, or appealable order made, by a district court may be: reversed, vacated, remanded, or modified by the supreme court for errors appearing on the record." W.R.AP. 1.05 defines an appeal-able order as:
(a) An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment; or
(b) An order affecting a substantial right made in a special proceeding; or
(c) An order made upon a summary application in an action after judgment; or
(d) An order, including a conditional order, granting a new trial on the grounds stated in Rule 59(a)(4) and (5), Wyo. R. Civ. P.; if an appeal is taken from such an order, the judgment shall remain final and in effect for the purposes of appeal by another party; or
(e) Interlocutory orders and decrees of the district courts which:
(1) Grant, continue, or modify injune-tions, or dissolve injunctions, or refuse to dissolve or modify injunctions; or
(2) Appoint receivers, or issue orders to wind up receiverships, or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposition of property.
[16] W.R.A.P. 1.05(c), (d), and (e) are not implicated in any possible analysis of the district court's Order on Termination of Parental Rights. Therefore, in order to qualify as appealable, the order must affect a substantial right, and must either be issued in a special proceeding, or prevent a judgment in the case, under W.R.A.P. 1.05(a) or (b). The first question is dispositive.
[17] This order does not affect a substantial right. Father's parental rights and right to associate with his daughter (and thus, KGK's right to association with her father) were not altered in any way by this interlocutory order. No substantial right of any party was affected. Therefore, the order was not an "appealable order" under W.R.A.P. 1.05.
[T8] In addition, contrary to what Mother implies on appeal, the order cannot be considered a judgment. Black's Law Dictionary 858 (8th ed.2004) defines a judgment as "[a] court's final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in a case". The order specified that issues remained to be resolved and invited the parties to request further hearings on those issues. In particular, the court found it necessary to leave the issues of child support and visitation unresolved because the parties had not presented sufficient evidence on those matters at the hearing on the petition to terminate. We cannot hear an appeal from an order that does not affect a substantial right, in a case where two of the three issues raised remain unaddressed by the court.
CONCLUSION
[T9] The Order on Termination of Parental Rights in this case did not affect a substantial right and so was not an appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05. The order also was not a judgment under W.R.A.P. 1.04, as it did not resolve all the issues in the case. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the order. We dismiss.
HILL, J., files a dissenting opinion.
. Compare FML v. TW, 2007 WY 73, ¶ 5-7, 157 P.3d 455, 458-59 (Wyo.2007), where we found that an order changing child custody was an appealable order because it affected a substantial right in a special proceeding. The cases are distinguishable because, here, the fundamental parent-child relationship was not altered by the order.
. The parties claim that another case was filed (though they cannot agree who filed it) concerning the issues of child support and visitation. We have no evidence of such a case in the record. In any event, the filing of a new matter does not change the fact that those issues are outstanding in this case, though it may present issues of collateral estoppel and res judicata for one proceeding or the other.