Opinion ID: 2639004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: is this an appealable order?

Text: [¶ 8] Initially, we must address Father's contention that the district court's order is not an appealable order as defined in W.R.A.P. 1.05. Father takes issue with the following language of the order: that the Temporary Order for custody entered in this case in March, 2002, is adopted and continued until three (3) months before [KRA] is eligible to begin Kindergarten in the school district of either parent, provided, however, that custody exchanges shall occur at 3:00 p.m. on Sunday. He contends that this order merely continues the temporary order and sets a determinable time for a final order to be entered. [¶ 9] The pertinent language of W.R.A.P. 1.05 reads: An appealable order is: (a) An order affecting a substantial right in an action, when such order, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment.... We applied this section in Steele v. Neeman, 6 P.3d 649, 653 (Wyo.2000). There, the parties were attempting to modify a divorce decree. Because the mother had moved with the child to New York, subject matter jurisdiction was a concern. Id. at 652. Prior to a hearing on the merits, the district court issued an order establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Id. After the hearing on the merits, the mother appealed the court's prior order establishing jurisdiction. Id. The father claimed that the appeal was untimely, asserting that the order was an appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05, and since mother filed her notice outside the allowable thirty-day time period, her appeal should be dismissed. Steele, 6 P.3d at 653. We concluded that the order was not appealable under W.R.A.P. 1.05. Steele, 6 P.3d at 653. We stated: The resolution of the jurisdictional issue by the district court did not determine the merits of the controversy. This is self-evident from the fact that the very order cited by Father also sets the merits of the controversyhis petition to modify visitationfor hearing. Since that order did not determine the merits of the controversy and resolve all outstanding issues, it was not a final, appealable order under W.R.A.P. 1.05(a). Id. [¶ 10] From the language of W.R.A.P. 1.05 and the holding of Steele, we glean three necessary characteristics of an appealable order. It must affect a substantial right, determine the merits of the controversy, and resolve all outstanding issues. See also Public Service Commission v. Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc., 608 P.2d 660, 661 (Wyo.1980) (a judgment or order which determines the merits of the controversy and leaves nothing for future consideration is final and appealable, and it is not appealable unless it does those things.). [¶ 11] Clearly, the present order affects a substantial right as we have long recognized parents' fundamental right to care for, educate, and associate with their children. Matter of MLM, 682 P.2d 982, 990 (Wyo. 1984). Likewise, the order determines the merits of the controversy. In this case, the controversy was over the issue of child support, custody and visitation. The parties presented evidence of their abilities and limitations with respect to these issues, and the district court's order made specific findings with regard to these issues. The order adequately addressed the merits of the controversy. [¶ 12] The final requirement is that an appealable order must resolve all outstanding issues. Father maintains that the order is not dispositive of custody but merely maintains the status quo until such time as a proper and fully considered custody determination can be made. In domestic cases involving children, a district court can only resolve issues as they exist at the time it hears the case. Because of the dynamic nature of family relationships, district courts have continuing jurisdiction to address new issues as they may arise. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2003), provides: A court having jurisdiction may modify an order concerning the care, custody and visitation of the children if there is a showing by either parent of a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question and that the modification would be in the best interests of the children.... The present order resolved the issue of custody when it ordered that the Temporary Order for custody entered in this case in March, 2002, is adopted and continued until (3) months before [KRA] is eligible to begin Kindergarten.... While it remains uncertain what visitation and custody arrangement will be in KRA's best interests when she begins school, the order clearly states that currently [t]he shared custody arrangement meets [KRA]'s needs better than sole custody with either parent would. The order addressed child support and custody and no issues remain unresolved. [¶ 13] Since the order affects a substantial right, determines the merits of the controversy, and resolves all outstanding issues, we find that it is an appealable order.