Court Opinion

ID: 9764092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:09:51.014067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:53.319553
License: Public Domain

KITE, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
[117] While I concur in the majority opinion and its reasoning, I write separately to point out that our jurisprudence provides divided custody is not favored and should not be imposed simply because both parents are equally qualified to be awarded custody.
[118] We have repeatedly stated that divided custody is not favored by this Court. Martin v. Martin, 798 P.2d 321, 322 (Wyo.1990); Feaster v. Feaster, 721 P.2d 1095, 1098 (Wyo.1986); Fink v. Fink, 685 P.2d 34, 36 n. 1 (Wyo.1984); Forbes v. Forbes, 672 P.2d 428, 430 (Wyo.1983); Ayling v. Ayling, 661 P.2d 1054, 1055 n. 3 (Wyo.1983). There are several reasons for our reluctance to embrace the concept, but first and foremost is the recognition that stability in a child's environment is of utmost importance to the child's well-being, and divided custody places the stability of a child's environment at risk. Whether termed "divided," "shared," or "joint" physical custody, "a measure of instability is inherent" in the arrangement. Gurney v. Gurney, 899 P.2d 52, 55 (Wyo.1995). We do not dispute that there may be cases where joint or shared physical custody may approximate the former family relationships more closely than other custodial arrangements, or for other good reason may be in the best interests of the children. However, "divided physical custody may not be indiscriminately substituted for an award of sole custody to one parent in order to appease one party." Reavis v. Reavis, 955 P.2d 428, 432 (Wyo.1998).
*979[T19] In this case, it appears that the district court had concerns about the mother's ability to communicate with and be supportive of the father as a co-parent. While the district court provided findings that are detailed and thorough and address all of the statutory criteria, it did not explain why divided custody was required in this situation other than a child benefits from having a strong relationship with both parents. That is true in all cases.
[120] I concur in the majority opinion because our standard of review allows reversal only if the district court abused its discretion and the district court obviously made an effort to consider all appropriate factors and to articulate its reasoning. However, I do not believe this case should be relied upon as indicating a deviation from our long line of cases disfavoring divided custody and requiring exceptional cireumstances.