Rataiczak v. Parker

550 P.3d 1051

2024 WY 70

Mitchell RATAICZAK, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.Gwendolyn PARKER, Appellee (Respondent).

S-23-0259

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 27, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, The Honorable Bill Simpson, Judge

Representing Appellant: Amanda K. Roberts and Blake T. Godwin of Lonabaugh and Riggs, LLP, Sheridan, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: No Appearance.

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ^*, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY and FENN, JJ.

FENN, Justice.

[¶1] Mitchell Rataiczak (Father) appeals the district court’s Order of Paternity, Custody and Child Support claiming the district court abused its discretion when it awarded him graduated visitation and declined to adjust his child support obligation in light of its allocation of transportation costs. Gwendolyn Parker (Mother) did not file a brief on appeal. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

ISSUES

[¶2] Father raises the following issues:

I. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it set forth a visitation schedule that does not promote understanding and compliance, pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 20-2-202(a)(i), is unreasonable under the circumstances, and is otherwise not supported by the evidence?

II. Did the district court abuse its discretion regarding its allocation of transportation costs for visitation with respect to its child support order?

FACTS

[¶3] The parties never married, but they are the biological parents of two minor children: CRR, born in Cody, Wyoming in 2020; and BSP-R, born in Sheridan, Wyoming in 2021. When BSP-R was three months old, the parties moved to Prescott, Arizona, where they resided as a family until May 2022. During this time, Father provided for the family financially, and Mother provided most of the care for the children. When BSP-R was eight months old, Mother told Father she needed to move to Cody, Wyoming, for three months to work at a veterinary clinic to obtain her "vet tech" certification. Although Mother told him she would return to Arizona with the children after she obtained her certificate, she actually intended to end her relationship with Father and stay in Wyoming. Believing Mother would only be gone for a short period of time, Father agreed to allow Mother to take the children to Wyoming while he continued to work and reside in Arizona.

[¶4] In August, Father began asking Mother when she was coming back to Arizona. She repeatedly told him she needed a little more time to obtain her certificate before returning to Arizona with the children. Father visited Cody in September 2022 to celebrate BSP-R’s first birthday. Other than this visit, all of his contact with the children occurred through phone and video calls. In December 2022, after Mother told him she had no intention of returning to Arizona, Father filed a petition to establish paternity, custody, visitation, and child support and a motion for temporary custody. Mother filed counter petitions for temporary and permanent primary custody of the children.

[¶5] In March 2023, the district court issued a temporary custody order. The district court awarded the parties joint legal custody of the children and gave Mother primary physical custody. The district court awarded Father visitation with the children in Cody on a schedule to be worked out between the parties or their attorneys. The district court ordered Father to pay Mother the statutory presumptive amount of monthly child support, which was $798 based on the parties’ incomes.

[¶6] The district court held a one-day bench trial in July 2023. Father testified he was only able to see the children in person four times after Mother moved to Wyoming: September 2022, December 2022, March 2023, and May 2023. Father currently works as an equipment operator at a mine, and his schedule is set a year in advance. Although he receives a seven day period off each month, he also has to spend some of this time caring for the horses and other animals on his property and performing yardwork and maintenance on his home. He testified it costs him approximately $2,500 each time he travels to Wyoming for a visit. Father asserted exercising his visitation exclusively in Wyoming was not sustainable, and he asked the district court to award him a block of time that he could spend with his children. Due to his mining schedule and financial constraints, Father requested visitation with the children for two months in the summer and every Christmas.

[¶7] Mother testified she obtained her "vet tech" certificate and is currently working for a veterinary hospital in Cody. Mother works 10 hour shifts, and the children are either in daycare or with their maternal grandmother when Mother is working. Mother intends to apply to veterinarian schools, none of which are located in Wyoming. Mother claimed Father was a non-participatory parent, and she had provided most of the care for the children since their births. She asserted Father was incapable of providing care for the children by himself, and she proposed a graduated visitation schedule.

[¶8] The district court issued a written order awarding the parties joint legal custody of the children and giving Mother primary physical custody. The district court created a graduated visitation schedule for Father, which was based largely on Mother’s proposal. The order states in relevant part:

Phase I: [Father] may exercise up to 90 days of visitation in Park County, Wyoming. The [c]ourt would hope [Father] would exercise all 90 days. However, for [Father] to move to the second phase of visitation he must make at least 40 days of visitation during the year. If not he would restart Phase I. During this phase there will be no overnights. The [c]ourt encourages the parties to work together to limit costs of transportation. If the cost of visitation is excessive and in an amount exceeding $10,000.00 then the [c]ourt will look at possible joint contribution of the parties to more equally share in the transportation upon proper application to the [c]ourt.

Phase II: [Father] upon graduating to Phase II of visitation shall be able to exercise up to 75 days of visitation in Park County, Wyoming. The [c]ourt would hope [Father] would exercise all 75 days of visitation. However, for [Father] to move to the third phase of visitation he must make at least 25 days of visitation during the year. [Father] will also receive one (1) week over Christmas and one (1) week in the Summer. If [Father] does not exercise the 25 days of visitation during the year, then he would restart Phase II. [Father] would not have overnights for the 75 days in Park County.

Phase III: [Father] upon graduating to Phase III of visitation shall be able to exercise up to 65 days of visitation in Park County, Wyoming. The [c]ourt would hope [Father] would exercise all 65 days of visitation. However, for [Father] to move to the fourth phase of visitation he must make at least 20 days of visitation during the year. [Father] will also receive one (1) week over Christmas and one (1) week in the Summer. If [Father] does not exercise the 20 days of visitation during the year then he would restart Phase III. [Father] may have overnights during the 65 days in Park County.

Phase IV: [Father] once getting to Phase IV shall have approximately eight (8) weeks in the Summer. The parties shall work together on a schedule that allows for eight (8) weeks but this [c]ourt is not specifically ordering an eight (8) week block.

After reaching Phase IV, Father would also receive certain alternating holidays. Although the district court ordered Father to be solely responsible for transportation costs, it made no adjustment to his child support obligation and kept it at the statutory presumptive amount. This appeal timely followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1–3] [¶9] "Child custody and visitation are within the sound discretion of the trial court." Castellow v. Pettengill, 2021 WY 88, ¶ 7, 492 P.3d 894, 897 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Bruce v. Bruce, 2021 WY 38, ¶ 12, 482 P.3d 328, 332 (Wyo. 2021)). Child support determinations are also left to the district court’s discretion, which will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Hehn v. Johnson, 2022 WY 71, ¶ 27, 511 P.3d 459, 464 (Wyo. 2022) (citing Snowden v. Jaure, 2021 WY 103, ¶ 11, 495 P.3d 882, 884 (Wyo. 2021)). However, when making a child support determination, the district court’s discretion is "guided by the applicable statutory provisions." Id. (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 2020 WY 18, ¶ 33, 458 P.3d 27, 38 (Wyo. 2020)).

[4–9] [¶10] "Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means exercising sound judgment with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously." Evans v. Sharpe, 2023 WY 55, ¶ 25, 530 P.3d 298, 307 (Wyo. 2023) (quoting Johnson v. Clifford, 2018 WY 59, ¶ 8, 418 P.3d 819, 822 (Wyo. 2018)). "A district court does not abuse its discretion if it could reasonably conclude as it did." Sears v. Sears, 2021 WY 20, ¶ 13, 479 P.3d 767, 772 (Wyo. 2021) (quoting Johnson, ¶ 8, 418 P.3d at 822). "Judicial discretion is not absolute[.]" Domenico v. Daniel, 2024 WY 2, ¶ 29, 541 P.3d 420, 429 (Wyo. 2024). "Abuse occurs when a material factor deserving significant weight is ignored, when an improper factor is relied upon, or when all proper and no improper factors are assessed, but the court makes a serious mistake in weighing them." Id., 541 P.3d at 429-30 (quoting Ianelli v. Camino, 2019 WY 67, ¶ 21, 444 P.3d 61, 66-67 (Wyo. 2019)). "We review the record to determine if sufficient evidence supports ‘the district court’s decision, and we afford the prevailing party every favorable inference while omitting any consideration of evidence presented by the unsuccessful party.’ " Id. at ¶ 30, 541 P.3d at 430 (quoting Bruce, 2021 WY 38, ¶ 12, 482 P.3d at 332). ‘We review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo." Id. (quoting Castellow, 2021 WY 88, ¶ 7, 492...