Opinion ID: 1135648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: guardianship, visitation, support obligations

Text: BDR next argues that the district court erred in permitting BEB and PJB leave to amend their pleadings with a petition for guardianship because guardianship is inconsistent with this court's directions as set out in the BBC I opinion. We disagree with BDR and hold that permitting an amended pleading for guardianship was consistent with our opinion in BBC I. We do so because the paramount concern in a guardianship proceeding is the best interest of the child, see WYO. STAT. § 3-2-101(a)(v) (1985), and our specific directions on remand required the district court to determine what is now in the best interest and welfare of BBC   . BBC I, 831 P.2d at 202. In addition, BDR asserts that the district court's grant of guardianship to BEB and PJB fails because no notice was given and no hearing was held. Although we find that the amended pleading petitioning for guardianship was consistent with our stated purpose in BBC I, we cannot see how the district court's grant of full guardianship to BEB and PJBwithout a hearing and based solely on old evidence elicited at the BBC I hearingsubstantially complied with our opinion in BBC I. As we have said before, [i]f a cause is remanded for a specified purpose, any proceedings inconsistent therewith are error. Sanders, 652 P.2d at 26 (quoting Potter, 570 P.2d at 454). Our opinion expressed a specific purpose to the district court when we said, [w]e remand this matter for a timely hearing before the trial court to determine what is now in the best interest and welfare of BBC   , as well as what are the father's rights   . BBC I, 831 P.2d at 202. (emphasis added). Clearly, this language contemplates a new evidentiary hearing where the current status of all the parties would be elicited, that is, the best interests of BBC today and the present status of BDR's rights in relation to BBC. Despite these specific directions, the district court granted guardianship to BEB and PJB without any hearing and without any new evidence concerning the present fitness of BDR. In its decision letter granting the guardianship the district court reasoned, Regarding the guardianship, it has been found by this court that the father is unfit to be custodian of the child. That finding was affirmed by the [Wyoming] Supreme Court. (Emphasis added). As is plainly evident from the highlighted language of the district court, the decision to grant guardianship was based on past findings by that court and not based on a timely hearing or what is now in the best interest of BBC. Therefore, the district court's actions concerning guardianship are inconsistent with the specific purpose we expressed in BBC I, and we hold that the district court, in granting the guardianship to BEB and PJB, exceeded its jurisdiction over this case as limited by our opinion and mandate from BBC I. Therefore, the decision granting guardianship is vacated. This same analysis applies to those parts of the district court order which denied visitation and relieved BDR of any support obligation. In making these determinations on visitation and support, the district court simply ignored our specific directions requiring a timely hearing and a determination of the present circumstances. In other words, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction of this remanded case when it ordered denial of visitation rights and support obligations, without substantially complying with our opinion and mandate. Therefore, the order concerning visitation and support obligation is also reversed.