Opinion ID: 3172528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mother’s Modification Argument

Text: [¶14] Mother claims that the district court erred in treating its ruling as an initial custody determination rather than as a modification of a custody order. In particular, Mother argues that the Final Custody Order was an order modifying the Temporary Custody Order and because there was no showing of a material change of circumstances following the court’s entry of the Temporary Custody Order, the court erred as a matter of law in modifying the Temporary Custody Order. We disagree. The Temporary Custody Order was not a final order subject to the modification provisions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2- 204(c), and entry of the Temporary Custody Order did not foreclose entry of a final custody order or change the framework for the district court’s custody analysis. 4 4 Mother’s modification argument is not one that was presented to the district court. Mother directs us to no such argument below, and in our review of the record, we found no objection to the district court addressing the custody determination as an initial determination and no argument that the court was in some way bound by its Temporary Custody Order. Generally, this Court will not address claims raised for the first time on appeal. Crofts v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Game and Fish, 2016 WL 97322, 2016 WY 4, ¶ 19, ___ P.3d ___ (Wyo. 2016) (quoting Davis v. City of Cheyenne, 2004 WY 43, ¶ 26, 88 P.3d 481, 490 (Wyo. 2004)). The question, however, of whether the district court’s ruling was an initial custody determination or a modification of an existing order has jurisdictional implications, and because a challenge to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, we will address the claim. See Arnott v. Arnott, 2012 WY 167, ¶ 14, 293 P.3d 440, 445 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Hanson v. Belveal, 2012 WY 98, ¶ 18, 280 P.3d 1186, 1193 (Wyo. 2012)) (“The district court does not properly acquire jurisdiction to reopen an existing custody order until there has been a showing of ‘a substantial or material change of circumstances    .’”); City of Casper v. Holloway, 2015 WY 93, ¶ 16, 354 P.3d 65, 70 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting In re AGS, 2014 WY 143, ¶ 15, 337 P.3d 470, 476 (Wyo. 2014)) (question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time at trial or appellate level). 5 [¶15] Although neither party argued below that the district court should treat its custody determination as a modification, the court began its custody analysis with a finding that its ruling would be an initial custody determination. The court stated: As a preliminary matter, the court believes it is appropriate to treat this action as an “initial custody determination,” as opposed to a modification petition. While Docket 177-865 does require [Father] to pay child support to [Mother], no court has been previously called upon to make a factual determination as to who should be the primary custodial parent, what an appropriate parenting schedule should be, or what is in the best interests of A.D-N. in that regard. [¶16] We agree with the district court. Before Father filed his Petition to Establish Custody and Visitation, and Modify Child Support in December 2012, no other order had been entered establishing custody and visitation. Because no order governing custody and visitation existed, there was no order to be modified, and the district court’s determination was properly treated as an initial custody determination. [¶17] Our conclusion is not affected by the district court’s entry of its Temporary Custody Order. The custody modification statute restricts a district court’s authority to “modify an order concerning the care, custody and visitation” of a child, and authorizes the modification only if either parent makes a showing of “a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2015). The question, then, is what constitutes “an order concerning the care, custody and visitation” of a child? Our precedent clearly answers that the statute limits the modification of a final order, not the modification of a temporary order. [¶18] We have repeatedly observed that the material-change-in-circumstances showing required to support a custody modification balances the tension between the need for finality in orders and the need to address a child’s best interests. Cook, ¶¶ 9-10, 357 P.3d at 752; Kappen v. Kappen, 2015 WY 3, ¶ 13, 341 P.3d 377, 382 (Wyo. 2015); Arnott, ¶ 14, 293 P.3d at 445; Aragon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, ¶ 9, 104 P.3d 756, 759 (Wyo. 2005). “Accordingly, a district court cannot reopen an existing custody order until the moving party establishes a ‘material change of circumstances which outweigh[s] society’s interest in applying the doctrine of res judicata[.]’” Kappen, ¶ 14, 341 P.3d at 382 (quoting CLH v. MMJ (In re TLJ), 2006 WY 28, ¶ 8, 129 P.3d 874, 876 (Wyo. 2006)). In other words, we have recognized that the orders to which the Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) modification requirements apply are final orders that the doctrine of res judicata would otherwise bar reopening. 6 [¶19] Res judicata bars relitigation of previously litigated claims and applies where there is: (1) Identity in parties; (2) identity in subject matter; (3) the issues are the same and relate to the subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons are identical in reference to both the subject matter and the issues between them. Breen v. Black, 2015 WY 96, ¶ 16, 353 P.3d 725, 729 (Wyo. 2015). [¶20] Based on these factors, the district court’s Temporary Custody Order was not an order subject to the Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) modification requirements, and entry of the temporary order did not foreclose entry of the Final Custody Order. By its plain terms, the Temporary Custody Order was strictly an interim order meant to apply only until a final custody determination was made. The sole issue it addressed was custody and visitation during the pendency of the parties’ custody dispute. The question of which parent should ultimately have primary custody and the question of a visitation schedule based on that ultimate custody ruling were not questions litigated during the temporary custody hearing. 5 The Temporary Custody Order and the Final Custody Order addressed different concerns, and the doctrine of res judicata did not apply to bar entry of the Final Custody Order. The district court therefore did not err in treating its Final Custody Order as an initial custody determination.