Opinion ID: 2626169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Standard of Review Custody and Visitation Modification

Text: [¶ 10] In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, an agreement made and entered into, in anticipation of a divorce which has been incorporated or adopted by reference into a decree, is presumed to merge into the divorce decree and will no longer be in effect. Pauling v. Pauling, 837 P.2d 1073, 1078 (Wyo.1992) (citing Phillips v. Phillips, 93 Idaho 384, 387, 462 P.2d 49, 52 (1969)); Witowski v. Roosevelt, 2009 WY 5, ¶ 23, 199 P.3d 1072, 1078-1079 (Wyo.2009). In the present case, clear and convincing evidence shows that the parties intended that the terms and provisions of their Agreement would survive merger. The district court's findings and orders in the Decree support the parties' intent that the custody and visitation provisions in the Agreement would survive merger. As a result, when the parties were unable to agree regarding custodial arrangements after the Agreement's expiration date, it became necessary for the district court to determine custody and visitation. [¶ 11] Statutorily, to modify an existing custody and visitation order, there must be 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). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2009). The party seeking a modification of the custody provisions of a divorce decree has the burden of showing that a material and substantial change of circumstances has occurred, after the entry of the initial decree, and that modification is in the best interests of the children. Fergusson v. Fergusson, 2002 WY 66, ¶ 9, 45 P.3d 641, 644 (Wyo.2002) (quoting Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 150 (Wyo.1998)); see Leitner v. Lonabaugh, 402 P.2d 713, 718-719 (Wyo.1965). [¶ 12] The trial court has discretion in determining custody and visitation issues to be in the best interests of the children: Custody, visitation, child support, and alimony are all committed to the sound discretion of the district court. It has been our consistent principle that in custody matters, the welfare and needs of the children are to be given paramount consideration. The determination of the best interests of the child is a question for the trier of fact. We do not overturn the decision of the trial court unless we are persuaded of an abuse of discretion or the presence of a violation of some legal principle. Fink [ v. Fink ], 685 P.2d [34,] 36 [(Wyo.1984)]. Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, ¶ 9, 22 P.3d 861, 865 (Wyo.2001) (quoting Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 431 (Wyo.1998)); Testerman v. Testerman, 2008 WY 112, ¶ 8, 193 P.3d 1141, 1144 (Wyo.2008). We apply the same standard of review regarding a trial court's determinations involving modification of custody and visitation arrangements. Fergusson, ¶ 9, 45 P.3d at 644; Morris v. Morris, 2007 WY 174, ¶ 5, 170 P.3d 86, 88 (Wyo.2007). [¶ 13] The law affords wide discretion to the district court when fashioning custody and visitation provisions for the best interests of the children. Pace, ¶ 11, 22 P.3d at 865 (quoting Reavis, 955 P.2d at 431). Such discretion encompasses one of the most difficult and demanding tasks assigned to a trial judge. Reavis, 955 P.2d at 431. Ultimately, the `goal to be achieved is a reasonable balance of the rights and affections of each of the parents, with paramount consideration being given to the welfare and needs of the children.' Pace, ¶ 11, 22 P.3d at 865 (quoting Leitner, 402 P.2d at 720). A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances. Our review entails evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's decision. . . . Findings of fact not supported by the evidence, contrary to the evidence, or against the great weight of the evidence cannot be sustained. Similarly, an abuse of discretion is present when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored. Buttle v. Buttle, 2008 WY 135, ¶ 15, 196 P.3d 174, 178 (Wyo.2008) (quoting Eickbush v. Eickbush, 2007 WY 179, ¶ 9, 171 P.3d 509, 511 (Wyo.2007)). [¶ 14] In every case, the district court must base its child custody determinations in the best interests of the children using the factors enumerated in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a). No single factor is determinative. Hayzlett v. Hayzlett, 2007 WY 147, ¶¶ 9, 10, 167 P.3d 639, 642 (Wyo.2007). Every case . . . requires careful weighing of relevant factors, looking to the unique and individual family relationships, in order to reach a resolution in the best interests of the children in that family. Pace, ¶ 13, 22 P.3d at 866 (quoting Reavis, 955 P.2d at 431). The district court must articulate those factors which were considered and how those factors support its conclusions. Pace, ¶ 13, 22 P.3d at 866 (quoting Reavis, 955 P.2d at 431). To play fair, a trial judge relying on discretionary power should place on record the circumstances and factors that were crucial to his determination . . . so that counsel and the reviewing court will know and be in a position to evaluate the soundness of his decision. Reavis, 955 P.2d at 431-432 (quoting Maurice Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed From Above, 22 Syracuse L.Rev. 635, 665-66 (1971)). [¶ 15] The court shall order custody in well defined terms to promote understanding and compliance by the parties. Custody shall be crafted to promote the best interests of the children, and may include any combination of joint, shared or sole custody. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(d). Similarly, there is statutory discretion for a district court to order visitation, in enough detail to promote understanding and compliance, as it deems in the best interests of each child. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202(a)(i). [¶ 16] Mother challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidentiary findings, to some degree, in every issue presented by her on appeal. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we accept the evidence of the successful party as true and give all favorable inferences to that evidence. Cranston v. Cranston, 879 P.2d 345, 351 (Wyo.1994) (citing Hill v. Zimmerer, 839 P.2d 977, 981 (Wyo.1992)). We leave out of consideration entirely the conflicting evidence of the unsuccessful party. Cranston, 879 P.2d at 351 (citing Kadrmas v. Valley West Homeowner's Ass'n, 848 P.2d 826, 828 (Wyo.1993) and Hill, 839 P.2d at 981).