Opinion ID: 2204316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Requirements for Modifying Joint Custody

Text: [¶ 8] Mother asserts the district court abused its discretion in awarding primary physical custody of the child to Father when he did not file a pleading seeking custody but instead merely filed a response to her petition. She claims his response did not give her adequate notice that he was seeking custody. Father responds that once Mother filed a petition for modification alleging a material change in circumstances, the district court was required to determine what custodial arrangement was in the best interest of the child. Father contends the district court was required to make that determination regardless of the pleading he filed in response to the petition. Father argues that because he agreed that the shared custody arrangement had failed, a material change in circumstances existed as a matter of law and the district court was left to decide which parent should have custody based upon the child's best interest. [¶ 9] Mother filed her petition pursuant to Wyo. Ann. Stat. § 20-2-204 (LexisNexis 2009), which provides in pertinent part as follows: § 20-2-204. Enforcement and modification. (a) Either parent may petition to enforce or modify any court order regarding custody and visitation. .... (c) 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 pursuant to W.S. 20-2-201(a). [¶ 10] We construed this provision in Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990), in the context of the parents' requests to modify visitation, child support and medical insurance provisions in the original divorce decree. Father filed a petition to modify the divorce decree to clarify his visitation rights, asserting that Mother had failed to allow reasonable visitation in accordance with the decree. Mother responded with a cross-petition to modify the child support and medical insurance provisions of the decree alleging that circumstances had changed in that she was no longer working. The district court modified the visitation provision and Mother appealed to this Court claiming the district court erred in doing so because Father had not shown a change in circumstances supporting the modification. We said: [T]he parties willingly presented and tried to the court the modification issues relating to visitation and medical insurance. Since the parties induced the district court to act by their motions to modify these provisions of the original divorce decree and by their litigation posture at the hearing on the motions, neither of them can be heard on appeal to argue error based upon that action. We determine that the district court could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the parties wanted it to exercise its revisory powers with respect to the visitation provisions and the medical insurance provision[.] Id. at 571. [¶ 11] Subsequently, in Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52 (Wyo.1995), we addressed modification of custody in the context of a divorce decree providing for shared physical custody. Shortly after the decree was entered, Mother moved with the child to a nearby town. Father filed a petition for modification of the custody order, claiming Mother was not abiding by the visitation agreement and a substantial change of circumstances had occurred warranting an award of primary physical custody to him. In response, Mother denied a change of circumstances had occurred and requested that Father's petition be denied. She also counter-petitioned for an order awarding primary physical custody to her and requested a hearing on the ground that communication between the parties had deteriorated and shared physical custody was not working. Following the hearing, the district court found a material change in circumstances had occurred and the best interest of the child supported modifying the decree to award primary physical custody to Father. [¶ 12] Mother appealed and we addressed the requirements for reopening a shared custody order. We concluded that when the parents are unable to make the shared physical custody arrangement work, a change of circumstances justifying judicial reexamination of the original joint custody order is demonstrated. Id. at 55. We said: [C]onsidering ... the parties' express invitations to reopen [the original custody order], common sense dictates the district court should reopen the joint custody order and award custody to one parent or the other. Here, as in Gaines, each party invited the district court to do so. No error can be claimed because that court accepted and, at the parties' behest, acted upon the invitations. Id. We have since reiterated the rule in Wyoming that when both parents inform the court that a joint physical custody arrangement is not working, a sufficient change in circumstances justifying the reopening of the custody order has been presented to the district court. Harshberger v. Harshberger, 2005 WY 99, ¶ 10, 117 P.3d 1244, 1249-1250 (Wyo.2005), citing Gurney, 899 P.2d at 55. [¶ 13] Here, Mother petitioned the court for modification of the original custody order asserting that the child was suffering from the current shared custody arrangement. Father filed a response in which he agreed that the child was suffering from the arrangement. Both parents having informed the district court that the shared custody arrangement was not working, the district court was presented with a sufficient change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of the original order. The parents presented a material change in circumstances by their agreement that shared physical custody was not working, and the district court was required pursuant to § 20-2-204(c) to determine what custody arrangement was in the child's best interest. [¶ 14] Mother claims Father's response to her petition to modify custody did not provide adequate notice that the district court might award Father primary physical custody of the child. She contends that because Father did not file a counterclaim for primary custody, the district court was limited to deciding whether to continue the original shared custody arrangement or modifying the decree by awarding primary physical custody to her. She asserts the district court did not have discretion to award primary custody to Father because he did not request such an award by way of a counterclaim. [¶ 15] As reflected in Gurney, the law has been established in Wyoming for fifteen years that when parents agree shared physical custody is not working, a district court is required to establish a custody arrangement that is in the child's best interest. Upon filing her petition for custody modification, and receiving Father's response agreeing that shared custody was not in the child's best interest, Mother was on notice that the original custody arrangement would be re-opened and a determination would be made as to what arrangement was in the best interest of the child. The district court was required to determine what arrangement was in the child's best interest, and was not limited to maintaining the status quo or awarding primary custody to Mother.