Court Opinion

ID: 9791219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:07:45.442453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.935390
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion in this case. I do not have any disagreement with the principles of law there set forth. I do not deem it proper, however, to note that while the majority opinion holds that the district court exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by § 3-2-101, W.S.1977, the attempted action of the district court was “wholly without jurisdiction.” Lake v. Lake, 63 Wyo. 375, 413, 182 P.2d 824, 840 (1947).
Mrs. Cline, as the petitioner in the district court, sought only to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under § 3-2-101, W.S.1977. That statute confers authority on the district court to appoint guardians for the persons and estates of minors “who reside or have estates within the county ” (emphasis added). The petition does not allege that the child had an estate within Sheridan County.
While the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Lake v. Lake supra, which interestingly enough also was tried in Sheridan County, the controlling principles *231are found in that case. The Supreme Court of Wyoming there set forth the propositions, quoting with approval from 2 Beale, Conflict of Laws, § 144.3, that custody of a child by one parent carries with it domicile; and that a state which is the temporary residence of the child and not the domicile cannot confer a right to custody. The court went on to quote with favor from the Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 117, the proposition that:
“ * * * ‘A state can exercise through its courts jurisdiction to determine the custody of children or to create the status of guardian of the person only if the domicil of the person placed under custody or guardianship is within the state.’ * * * ” Lake v. Lake, supra, 63 Wyo. at 412, 182 P.2d at 839.
When the District Court of Sheridan County was apprised of the provisions for custody in the Wisconsin decree, it then was chargeable with knowledge that it was without jurisdiction over the guardianship proceeding, and the writ of prohibition for that reason is most appropriate. The Wisconsin judgment was entitled to full faith and credit to that end.
This rationale is consistent with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, particularly that portion of the definitions’ section which relates to the home state, § 20-5-103(a)(v), W.S.1977. It is compatible with the purpose of that statute as set forth in § 20-5-102, W.S.1977, and carries out the intention of the legislature. Since the court was without jurisdiction it probably is not necessary to consider whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction.