Date: 06-27-2024

Case Style:

Mitchell Rataiczak v. Gwendolyn Parker

Case Number: S-23-0259

Judge: Bill Simpson

Court: District Court, Park County, Wyoming

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Cody Family Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: No appearance

Description:

Cody, Wyoming family law lawyers represented the Petitioner who sued on seeking better visitation with his children.

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 Mothertold 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 inArizona.

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 visitedCody 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.


The district court held a one-daybench trial in July 2023. Father testified he was only able to seethe 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.

The district court issued a written order awardingthe parties joint legal custody of the childrenand givingMother primary physical custody. The district court created a graduated visitation schedule for Father, which wasbased 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 all75 days of visitation. However, for [Father] to move to the thirdphase of visitation hemust 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]ourtwould hope [Father] would exercise all65 days of visitation. However, for [Father] to move to the fourthphase of visitation he must make at least 20days of visitation during the year.[Father] will also receive one (1) week over Christmas and one (1)weekinthe Summer.If [Father] does not exercise the 20days 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 ap 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.

Outcome: The district court abused its discretion when it ordered a visitation plan that is not clear enough to promote understanding and compliance. In addition, the district courtnever explainedwhy the graduated visitation plan wasin the best interests of thechildren, and we find no support for this disposition in the record. We reverse and remand this matter for the entry of a new visitation plan that contains enough detail to comply with Wyoming Statute § 20-2-202(a)(i). Based on the new visitation plan, the district court should consider whether an adjustment to Father’s child support obligation or the allocation of transportation expenses is appropriate.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: