Opinion ID: 1194287
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction to order support

Text: On numerous occasions this court has held that the provisions of § 20-2-113(a), supra, n. 1, grant a district court continuing jurisdiction, at any time, to modify a decree respecting custody or the payment of support money  the paramount consideration always being the best interests and welfare of the children. Rose v. Rose, Wyo., 576 P.2d 458 (1978); Strahan v. Strahan, Wyo., 400 P.2d 542 (1965). The legislature has provided this because parents' obligation to support their children is a continuing one. Redman v. Redman, Wyo., 521 P.2d 584 (1974). In the case at bar, the district court was properly acting under its authority, pursuant to § 20-2-113(a), supra, when it ordered an increase in the support payments for the incapacitated daughter Marlana. According to this section, the court had continuing jurisdiction to modify the November, 1976 decree, and such power will continue until the necessity for the support of Marlana ceases or other changes in circumstances become apparent. We hold that § 20-2-113(a), W.S. 1977, grants the district court jurisdiction to provide for support of the children of divorced parents when the need for support is necessary. Such power is conferred upon the court notwithstanding the age of the child. The keystone consideration is the need for support, and, as always, the ability to pay. We are not, however, in this case, required to determine in what situations the parental duty of support will cease. We simply say that here there was a duty to support and the court had the power to enforce it. Affirmed.