Opinion ID: 2745077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Visitation Contempt and Award of Day Care Costs

Text: [¶18] In its Order on Motion for Contempt, the district court found Father in contempt for failing to exercise visitation with CCB as required by the parties’ Agreement.2 Based on that finding, the court ordered Father to reimburse Mother for the day care costs she incurred during the period Father was supposed to be exercising visitation. We find no support for this ruling in the record. [¶19] The parties’ Agreement allows Father the opportunity to exercise visitation with the parties’ children. It does not mandate that visitation. In regard to summer visitation, the Agreement allows the parties to “opt to have the children for two consecutive weeks 1 Mother argues that Father’s appeal of the contempt order is moot because Father has already paid all amounts ordered by the district court as a result of the contempt findings and in doing so has purged himself of the contempt. We disagree. First, it is not clear from the district court’s ruling that payment of the amounts ordered operated to purge the entire contempt. The Order on Motion for Contempt provided that Father could purge his contempt on the insurance violation by providing proof of insurance, but it contained no similar provision on the other violations. Second, the contempt violations are based on findings that may affect the parties going forward. For these reasons, a dispute remains on which this Court’s decision will have an impact and the matter is not moot. See KO v. LDH (In re MEO), 2006 WY 87, ¶ 27, 138 P.3d 1145, 1153-54 (Wyo. 2006) (to remain a justiciable controversy, there must be “a sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact on the parties.”). 2 The district court’s order did not explicitly state that the court was holding Father in contempt for failing to exercise his visitation with CCB. The finding that Father violated the Agreement, and the associated award of costs, were, however, in the contempt order, and we will therefore treat the court’s ruling as if it were a contempt holding. 6 during the summer visitation in order to accommodate longer trips.” If the parties choose to exercise this option, they must “make such arrangements before May 31 of every year.” Mother testified that she and Father discussed the two-week visitation option and scheduled a two-week period during the 2013 summer that Father would have the extended visitation with CCB. Even assuming, however, that the parties agreed upon and scheduled the extended visitation, the Agreement does not make that visitation mandatory or require Father to pay cancellation costs if his plans to exercise his visitation rights were to change. 3 [¶20] The record does not contain clear and convincing evidence that Father violated an order requiring visitation with CCB. We therefore reverse that portion of the court’s Order on Motion for Contempt that found Father in violation of the Agreement for failing to exercise visitation with CCB and vacate the award of day care costs associated with that finding.