Opinion ID: 1172264
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Visitation, Support and Attorney Fees

Text: Visitation, child support, apportionment of attorney fees and cost allocation are all committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Basolo v. Basolo, 907 P.2d 348, 352 (Wyo.1995). The definition of rights of visitation is an aspect of the determination of custody, and it has been our consistent principle that in custody matters the welfare and needs of the children are to be given paramount consideration. Rowan v. Rowan, 786 P.2d 886, 890 (Wyo.1990); see also Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52, 55 (Wyo.1995) and Fink v. Fink, 685 P.2d 34, 36 (Wyo.1984) (In all instances in which the care and rearing of a minor child is a matter of concern, the paramount consideration is the best interests of the child.). The determination of the best interest of the child is a question for the trier of fact. We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle. Fink, 685 P.2d at 36. A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances, as is said to mean an error of law committed by the court under the circumstances. Pinther v. Pinther, 888 P.2d 1250, 1252 (Wyo.1995). As the appointed attorney for the minor, a guardian ad litem is obligated to participate as an advocate for the child. [T]he guardian ad litem has the same ethical responsibilities in the proceeding as any other attorney, Moore v. Moore, 809 P.2d 261, 264 (Wyo.1991), and has a responsibility to ensure that the record contains information relative to the child's best interest and welfare, factors essential to the court's final determination. See Sharpe v. Sharpe, 902 P.2d 210, 215 (Wyo.1995); Pauling v. Pauling, 837 P.2d 1073, 1077 (Wyo.1992). The guardian ad litem here, however, produced no evidence on behalf of the Child at the visitation and support hearing. While Father did present evidence regarding his fitness and finances, he likewise presented no evidence relating to the Child's best interest and welfare. Neither Mother nor her attorney attended the hearing. The district court was understandably displeased by Mother's failure to appear. In similar situations we have stated: The apparent anger of the district court obligates our inquiry as to whether    such a condition of the mind [exists] which sways judgment and renders the judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in a given case or which is inconsistent with a state of mind fully open to the conviction which evidence might produce. Of course, the mere fact of restricted visitation does not necessarily indicate motive to punish or bias. Rather, our threshold inquiry remains whether the evidence presented fairly supports the decision of the district court. Basolo, 907 P.2d at 353 (citations omitted); see also Brown v. Avery, 850 P.2d 612, 616 (Wyo.1993) and Cline v. Sawyer, 600 P.2d 725, 729 (Wyo.1979). The prime judicial objective in dealing with visitation and support is to serve the best interest of the childnot to punish or reward one parent for real or supposed derelictions. Curless v. Curless, 708 P.2d 426, 430 (Wyo.1985); Henson v. Henson, 384 P.2d 721, 723 (Wyo.1963). Visitation is primarily for the benefit of the child    [and][t]he custodial parent's misconduct cannot destroy the child's right to support   . Hester v. Hester, 663 P.2d 727, 729 (Okla.1983). We hold that given the complete absence of any evidence representing the best interest and welfare of Child, the court abused its discretion in ruling on visitation and support, and we remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing. In reviewing the award of attorney fees, we have recognized that the district court has extremely broad discretion with which we will not interfere except upon proof that such discretion was gravely abused. Haltom v. Haltom, 755 P.2d 876, 879-80 (Wyo.1988). In the instant case, we are unwilling to find a grave abuse of discretion. Given our decision regarding the issues of visitation and support, however, we find it appropriate that the district court revisit the issue of attorney fees following the evidentiary hearing.