Title: SLU v. STATEOF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES
Citation: 142 P.3d 1133, 2006 WY 115
Docket Number: 
State: Wyoming
Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court
Date: September 15, 2006

SLU v. STATEOF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES Annotate this Case SLU v. STATEOF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES 2006 WY 115 142 P.3d 1133 Case Number: C-06-01 Decided: 09/15/2006 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2006 SLU, Appellant (Respondent), v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee (Petitioner). Appeal from the DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty Representing Appellant: Walter Urbigkit, Cheyenne, Wyoming Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Ellen Rutledge, Assistant Attorney General Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL,* KITE, BURKE, JJ. * Chief Justice at time of expedited conference GOLDEN, Justice. [¶1] The Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) filed a petition to establish paternity and child support, pursuant to which a child support order was entered against SLU. Accompanying the order were several documents including a "Child Support Computation Form" and an "Affidavit of Income Determination." These two documents were submitted by DFS without prior approval or even knowledge of SLU. SLU promptly moved to strike these documents, claiming they contained false information and information inconsistent with the final support order. Her motion was denied. SLU filed the instant notice of appeal from the denial of her motion to strike. [¶2] SLU does not take issue with the final support order, but rather only with the presence in the district court file of the two above-referenced allegedly extraneous documents. SLU does not contend that the documents she seeks to have stricken affected the final support order in any manner. As such, we need only rely upon SLU's own argument in determining that the order denying her motion to strike does not meet the definition of an appealable order as found in W.R.A.P. 1.05.1 Since this Court only has jurisdiction to entertain appeals from final appealable orders, and the order denying SLU's motion to strike in this matter is not such an order, we hereby dismiss this appeal. Plymale v. Donnelly, 2006 WY 3, ¶ 4, 125 P.3d 1022 , 1023 (Wyo. 2006). FOOT