Inman v. Williams

187 P.3d 868

2008 WY 81

Walker Patterson INMAN, Jr., Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Daisha Loraine WILLIAMS, f/k/a Daisha Loraine Inman, Appellee (Defendant).

No. S-07-0064.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 15, 2008.

Representing Appellant: John D. Bowers of Bowers Law Firm, P.C., Afton, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: William L. Combs of Combs Law Office, L.L.C., Evanston, Wyoming.

Before GOLDEN, and HILL, JJ., and KAUTZ, DONNELL, and PERRY, D.JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶ 1] This appeal brings into focus a non-custodial parent's long-standing effort to secure visitation with her two children which the district court, pursuant to the parents' stipulation, ordered nearly eight years ago. Father, the custodial parent, appeals the district court's order filed January 4, 2007, in which the court found Father was not in contempt for failing to follow the court's earlier order filed May 19, 2006, and in which the court reiterated most of the same directives to Father and Mother contained in that earlier order. In this appeal, Father asserts that the district court's order violates his fundamental rights to associate with and raise his children and is not supported by evidence. While Mother disagrees with Father's assertions, she also raises the issue whether the district court's order is an appealable order as required by W.R.A.P. 1.05 so that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. We hold that it is not an appealable order and, therefore, we dismiss this appeal with instructions issued in accordance with this Court's supervisory authority.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Father presents this issue:

Was the district court's order restricting [Father's] rights in caring for his children not supported by the evidence and/or a violation of his fundamental rights to associate [with] and raise his children?

Mother responds with these issues:

I. The order issued on January 4, 2007, is not an appealable order.

II. The brief of the appellant is so defective as to warrant dismissal or affirmance.

III. Utilizing the appropriate standards of review, appellant's contentions are without merit.

FACTS

[¶ 3] In order to put this appeal in proper perspective, we must relate at some length what has historically transpired with these parents. Father and Mother married on March 21, 1996, and twins were born to the couple on October 23, 1997. The children have emotional and learning problems, perhaps related to fetal alcohol syndrome and other causes. On August 29, 2000, Father and Mother divorced; in the divorce decree the court awarded Father primary custody of the children subject to Mother's visitation as set forth in the recommendations of the children's guardian ad litem. On June 25, 2001, the court filed its stipulated order modifying the divorce decree's visitation provisions in a number of specific respects. In that order, the court, after setting out the specifics of Mother's visitation privileges, also provided:

12. Disputes between the parties over the carrying out of any provision of this Order shall be resolved first by application to the Guardian ad litem for recommendation, which shall be final except however, neither party is precluded from making application to the District Court for enforcement or modification of any provision of this Order as may be reasonable and necessary, subject to the necessary showing to support such application.

13. As the children become accustomed to visitation with [Mother], [Mother] may request a recommendation from the Guardian ad litem to increase visitation including extended visitation and overnight visitation. In the event [Mother] disagrees with the Guardian ad litem's recommendation, she may make application to the Court for modification of this order upon the necessary showing to support modification of this visitation schedule.

14. Both parties shall cooperate with one another and with the Guardian ad litem, as may be required by the best interests of the children.

15. Neither party shall denigrate nor disparage the other to or in the presence of the minor children, and both parties shall endeavor to set aside their differences to respect the other's role in their children's life so that the children may enjoy the benefit of both parents.

16. [Mother] shall execute necessary releases to allow the Guardian ad litem to consult with her parenting class instructors and counselors to determine her compliance with the applicable provisions of the Decree of Divorce.

17. The Guardian ad litem, in her discretion, may modify the visitation schedule provided herein as may be reasonable and necessary to enforce the Orders of this Court or as may otherwise be reasonable and necessary to protect the parties' custodial and visitation rights and the best interests of the children.

18. All terms and provisions of the Decree of Divorce not affected hereby shall remain in full force and effect.

[¶ 4] On November 15, 2004, Mother filed her petition to modify and enforce the divorce decree and the stipulated order of June 25, 2001. The thrust of that petition was that Father's actions had frustrated Mother's visitation privileges and she was seeking relief from the court. On March 7, 2005, Mother filed a motion seeking immediate and regular visitation. In that motion, she averred that a hearing was scheduled for January 19, 2006, on her November 15, 2004, petition. Apparently, no action was taken on that motion. On July 22, 2005, Mother filed renewed motions to obtain regular visitation, to appoint a substitute guardian ad litem for the children, to order a custody evaluation, to join or consolidate pending actions, and to set hearings. Apparently, no action was taken on that pleading. On December 2, 2005, Mother filed yet another pleading covering the same matters presented in her earlier pleading. On December 12, 2005, the court filed its order setting Mother's above-mentioned pleadings for a hearing on January 18, 2006. The court held the hearing on January 18, 2006, and filed its order concerning that hearing on May 19, 2006. From our reading of that order, it is clear that its thrust is the court's effort to prepare the children for visitation with Mother which, although ordered earlier, had not occurred. In that order, the court listed twenty-seven directives to guide the parents, their counsel, and the children's guardian ad litem in the court's plan to prepare the children for reconnection with Mother "as rapidly as safely and appropriately possible." The twenty-seven directives were:

[1] THAT the minor children of the parties shall begin personal therapy with Gale Holtby, MS, LPC as soon as it can be arranged; if possible in light of Ms. Holtby's schedule, such therapy should take place weekly, at the children's school;

[2] THAT the children shall not miss such therapy appointments unless excused by a physician's note or an absence prearranged and excused by Ms. Holtby;

[3] THAT, for the best interests of the children, both parents shall cooperate and work with Ms. Holtby, the children's school, and the Guardian ad Litem; both parents shall follow the recommendations of Ms. Holtby;

[4] THAT both parents shall execute any releases of information in favor of Ms. Holtby that would be necessary or helpful in her therapy with the children;

[5] THAT Ms. Holtby shall have access to any and all information within the control of the parties, including contact with any counselor of the parties, that would be necessary or helpful in her therapy with the children;

[6] THAT the therapy previously arranged for the children by Mr. Inman shall cease immediately;

[7] THAT Ms. Holtby's therapy with the children shall include preparing them for reconnection with their mother as rapidly as safely and appropriately possible;

[8] THAT upon the recommendation of Ms. Holtby, the children's visitation with their mother shall begin; Ms. Holtby, in consultation with the children's Guardian ad Litem, shall set the terms and conditions for the visitations as well as for such telephone and other contact recommended by Ms. Holtby;

[9] THAT if and when recommended by Ms. Holtby, the visits between the children and their mother will increase in frequency and duration and the supervision will cease;

[10] THAT, with the recommendation and approval of Ms. Holtby, the children shall be allowed to continue (or begin again) their contacts with the school professionals with whom they have worked for years (including Ms. D. Whitney and Ms. D. Hokansen);

[11] THAT when visitation between the children and their mother begins, Mr. Randy Williams shall not be included in nor in the locale of the visits; there will be no contact between Mr. Williams and the children whatsoever;

[12] THAT when visitation between the children and their mother begins, an appropriate supervisor shall be chosen, someone who knows the children and with whom they feel comfortable; Ms. Holtby and the Guardian ad Litem shall select the supervisor;

[13] THAT Dr. Martha Schilling, who has worked with the family in the past, is permitted to update her evaluations done in 1999, but only to the limited extent doable at this time (i.e. any parent/child relationship assessments would not be appropriately done at this time; perhaps updating the past/present personal circumstances of the parents would be appropriately done at this time, but if there is any question, then Dr. Schilling should seek direction from this Court);

[14] THAT both parents shall encourage and support this plan for reconnection between the children and their mother; no one shall speak negatively about the parents in front of the children or allow others to do so; the parents shall not ask the children about the other parent or the activities within the other parent's household; the parents and the extended families will encourage the development/continuation of a loving relationship between the children and the other parent;

[15] THAT the parents shall take any concerns ...