Opinion ID: 1218393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Petitions to Modify.

Text: On June 22, 1988, father filed his motion to modify the divorce decree to specify his visitation rights. In that motion he stated that although the decree provided he would have liberal visitation, mother had failed to allow it; that the visitation rights as described in the decree were unclear and the decree should be modified to specify those rights. In her July 6, 1988 response to father's motion to modify, mother not only denied his allegations but also moved to modify the decree. In her motion to modify she averred that since she was now unemployed the decrease in her income constituted a significant change of circumstances, necessitating an increase in the amount of child support paid by father. In light of her unemployment she also asked the court to enforce that part of the medical insurance provision of the decree either requiring father to share equally the expense of an independent medical insurance policy to cover mother and the minor child or, in the alternative, requiring father to provide complete medical insurance coverage for the minor child. The parties litigated these modification issues in their August 9, 1988 hearing before the district court commissioner. On the visitation issue, father and his present wife testified about the difficulties they encountered with mother when trying to arrange father's visitation. Their testimony indicated mother was of a mind not to allow any visitation other than a thirty-day period in the summer unless father agreed to reduce that thirty-day period by the number of visitation days she otherwise might allow at other times during the year. In her testimony on this issue, mother said that thirty days of uninterrupted visitation with father during the summer was too long for the minor child to be away from home; she had given father the option of seeing the child every four to six weeks instead, but not to exceed a total of thirty days. In reply to a question, she answered that she was asking the court to reduce father's summer visitation. She testified that she had no problem with father's visiting for several days every four to six weeks as long as those days were part of the thirty-day total. She testified that she wanted to change the visitation provision in the original decree along that line as she thought that was in the child's best interest. With respect to father's visitation on the Christmas holiday, as specified in the original decree, mother testified that she interpreted the holiday to mean a three or four day period but not the total number of days identified as the normal school holiday. She felt the normal school holiday was too long a period for father to have visitation. Yet, revealingly, she admitted that when it was her turn to have the child for the Christmas holiday period, then she felt she should have the child for the entire school holiday period of twelve days. On the medical insurance issue, mother testified that she had remarried, there had been about one month where she and the child had been without medical insurance coverage due to her unemployment, she was currently employed at Gibson's pharmacy, she also worked one day a week at the pharmacy in which her present husband was a partner, she and the child were currently covered by medical insurance through her employment at her husband's pharmacy, and her husband's salary at the pharmacy was the source from which the medical insurance coverage was being paid. Keeping in mind the foregoing evidence, as well as the other testimony adduced at hearing, we are convinced that the district court neither erred nor abused its discretion in its disposition of the parties' motions. We find that the parties willingly presented and tried to the court the modification issues relating to visitation and medical insurance. Since the parties induced the district court to act by their motions to modify these provisions of the original divorce decree and by their litigation posture at the hearing on the motions, neither of them can be heard on appeal to argue error based upon that action. Thatcher & Sons, Inc. v. Norwest Bank Casper, N.A., 750 P.2d 1324, 1328 (Wyo. 1988); Appeal of Williams, 626 P.2d 564, 571 (Wyo. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 896, 102 S.Ct. 394, 70 L.Ed.2d 211; and Weber v. Johnston Fuel Liners, Inc., 519 P.2d 972, 978 (Wyo. 1974). We determine that the district court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the parties wanted it to exercise its revisory powers with respect to the visitation provisions and the medical insurance provision, that changes in circumstances had occurred, that these changes together with the parties' invitations to revise the original decree warranted modification of the decree, and that the modification would be in the best interests of the parties' minor child. We hold that the district court's judgment in these matters did not exceed the bounds of reason under all the circumstances and cannot be said to be an error of law. Lastly, we decline to certify that no reasonable cause for appeal existed. Affirmed. MACY, J., files a dissenting opinion.