IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
`
`January 31, 2024
`10:53:43 AM
`CASE NUMBER: S-23-0295
`
`
`STEPHANIE KAY TATE,
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellant
`
`
`
`(Petitioner),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOEL THOMAS TATE,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appellee,
`
`
`
`(Defendant).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`S-23-0295
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLANT
`
`
`Anna Reeves Olson, 6-3692
`LONG REIMER WINEGAR, LLP
`242 S. Park Street
`Casper, Wyoming 82601
`(307) 265-3843
`aolson@lrw-law.com
`
`Attorney for Appellant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................... ii. iii
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE ........................................................................................................................ 3
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`FACTS AND DISPOSITION IN DISTRICT COURT .............................................................................. 4
`
`DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................................. 17-29
`
`I. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT: (1) FAILED TO
`CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF SEPARATING TJT FROM HIS HALF- AND STEP-
`SIBLINGS; (2) FOUND THAT THE FACTORS FAVORING JOEL DRAMATICALLY
`OUTWEIGHED STEPHANIE’S STATUS AS TJT’S PRIMARY CARE GIVER; AND
`(3) PLACED ANY WEIGHT ON THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT THAT STEPHANIE
`WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY PRESUMPTION IF SHE WERE TO MOVE
`
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 18
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Aragon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, 104 P.3d 756 (Wyo. 2005) ............................................. 18-19, 22
`
`Buttle v. Buttle, 2008 WY 135, 196 P.3d 174 (Wyo. 2008) .......................................................... 23
`
`Bruegman v. Bruegman, 2018 WY 49, 417 P.3d 157 (Wyo. 2018) ......................................... 18, 23
`
`Castellow v. Pettengill, 2021 WY 88, 492 P.3d 894 (Wyo. 2021) ........................................... 28, 29
`
`Donnelly v. Donnelly, 2004 WY 72, 92 P.3d 298 (Wyo. 2004) ..................................................... 18
`
`Gardels v. Bowling, 2023 WY 3, 522 P.3d 1047 (Wyo. 2023) ...................................................... 20
`
`Gutierrez v. Bradley, 2021 WY 139, 500 P.3d 984 (Wyo. 2021) .................................................. 20
`
`Hede v. Gilstrap, 2005 WY 24, 107 P.3d 158 (Wyo. 2005) .......................................................... 28
`
`Ianelli v. Camino, 444 P.3d 61, 2019 WY 67 (Wyo. 2019) ................................... 18, 19-20, 20-21
`
`Kelly v. Kelly, 2023 WY 48, 529 P.3d 494 (Wyo. 2023) ............................................ 23, 25, 26, 27
`
`Long v. Long, 2018 WY 26, 413 P.3d 117 (Wyo. 2018)............................................................... 28
`
`Martin v. Hart, 2018 WY 123, 429 P.3d 56 (Wyo. 2018) ........................................................... 22
`
`Matter of Adoption of RDS, 787 P.2d 968 (Wyo. 1990) ................................................................ 28
`
`Pace v. Pace, 2001 WY 43, 22 P.3d 861 (Wyo. 2001) ................................................................... 18
`
`Paden v. Paden, 2017 WY 118, 403 P.3d 135 (Wyo. 2017) ......................................................... 19
`
`Produit v. Produit, 2001 WY 123, 35 P.3d 1240 (Wyo. 2001)...................................................... 19
`
`Sorensen v. May, 944 P.2d 429 (Wyo. 1997) .................................................................................. 22
`
`Walsh v. Smith, 2020 WY 25, 458 P.3d 58 (Wyo. 2020) ............................................................. 20
`
`Williams v. Williams, 2016 WY 21, 368 P.3d 539 (Wyo. 2016) .................................................. 23
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Rules
`
`W.R.A.P. 1.05 .................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`W.R.C.P. 52 ....................................................................................................................... 19, 20, 22
`
`Statutes
`
`W.S. § 20-2-201 ............................................................................................................ 13, 14, 15, 16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Modern Child Custody Practice, § 4-17 (2d ed. 2004) ..................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`On September 28, 2023, the Ninth Judicial District Court entered its Findings of Fact,
`
`Conclusions of Law, and Order on Petition to Modify Custody and Child Visitation & Counterclaim. ROA
`
`at 359-93. On September 29, 2023, the district court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
`
`Law, and Order on Petition to Modify Custody and Child Visitation & Counterclaim Nunc Pro Tunc.
`
`ROA at 394-428. This second Order fully disposed of all claims asserted in Appellant’s Verified
`
`Petition for Modification of Child Custody and Child Visitation. ROA 102-33. Thereafter, Appellant
`
`timely filed a Notice of Appeal (ROA 432-33) and an Amended Notice of Appeal (ROA at 451-52).
`
`The Wyoming Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.05(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`STATEMENTOF THEISSUE
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
`
`WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSEDITS DISCRETION WHENIT:(1) FAILED
`WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT: (1) FAILED
`TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF SEPARATING TJT FROM HIS HALF- AND
`TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF SEPARATING TJT FROM HIS HALF- AND
`STEPSIBLINGS;
`(2)
`FOUND THAT
`THE
`FACTORS
`FAVORING JOEL
`STEPSIBLINGS;
`(2) FOUND THAT THE FACTORS FAVORING
`JOEL
`DRAMATICALLY OUTWEIGHED STEPHANIE’S STATUS AS TJT’S PRIMARY CARE
`DRAMATICALLY OUTWEIGHED STEPHANIE’S STATUS AS TJT’S PRIMARY CARE
`GIVER; AND (3) PLACED ANY WEIGHT ON THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT THAT
`GIVER; AND (3) PLACED ANY WEIGHT ON THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT THAT
`STEPHANIE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY PRESUMPTION IF SHE WERE TO
`STEPHANIE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED TO ANY PRESUMPTION IF SHE WERE TO
`MOVE.
`MOVE.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`-2-
`
`

`

`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`When Stephanie Tate (“Stephanie” or “Mother”) decided that she needed to move
`
`from Wyoming to Michigan, in order to be with her husband, she petitioned the district court
`
`for a modification of its custodial order regarding her four-year-old son, TJT. In her petition,
`
`Stephanie requested that she be allowed to relocate to Michigan with TJT because she had
`
`been TJT’s primary custodian since his birth, she was pregnant with TJT’s half-sibling, TJT
`
`had two step-siblings in her home with her new husband, and it would be in TJT’s best
`
`interests for her to remain TJT’s primary custodian. The child’s father, Joel Tate (“Joel” or
`
`“Father”), counterclaimed and maintained that even though Stephanie was and had been TJT’s
`
`primary custodian, TJT should remain in Wyoming with him.
`
`After a one-day trial, the district court held that Stephanie’s desire to move to Michigan
`
`amounted to a material change in circumstances, but that it was in TJT’s best interests for Joel
`
`to be TJT’s primary physical custodian. In doing so, however, the district court did not
`
`consider the fact that this custodial arrangement would separate TJT from his half- and step-
`
`siblings or consider Stephanie’s status as TJT’s primary caregiver to be a crucial factor.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`
`
`On August 13, 2021, Stephanie K. Tate, filed her Complaint for Divorce against her
`
`husband, Joel T. Tate. ROA at 1-3. Less than two weeks later, the Parties settled the terms of
`
`their separation and submitted their Settlement Agreement to the district court. ROA at 67-86.
`
`The district court then incorporated the provisions of that Settlement Agreement into the Parties’
`
`Decree of Divorce, which was entered on September 29, 2021. ROA at 93-96.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`A year-and-a-half later, on February 6, 2023, Stephanie filed her Verified Petition for
`
`Modification of Child Custody and Child Visitation (ROA at 102-33), Joel responded and
`
`counterclaimed (ROA at 142-154), and Stephanie replied (ROA at 155-158).
`
`
`
`A one-day bench trial was held on July 11, 2023 (Tr. of Proceedings, Volumes I and
`
`II), and on September 28, 2023, the district court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
`
`and Order on Petition to Modify Custody and Child Visitation & Counterclaim. ROA at 359-393. On
`
`September 29, 2023, the district court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
`
`on Petition to Modify Custody and Child Visitation & Counterclaim Nunc Pro Tunc. ROA at 394-428.
`
`Stephanie then filed her Notice of Appeal (ROA 432-33) and Amended Notice of Appeal (ROA at
`
`451-52).
`
`FACTS & DISPOSITION IN THE DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`Stephanie and Joel were married on November 22, 2016 and in 2018, they had a child
`
`-- TJT. ROA at 395. Stephanie and Joel lived in Jackson, where Stephanie was employed as an
`
`elementary school teacher with the Teton County School District. ROA at 397; Tr. at 10.1
`
`Stephanie had her master’s degree in early elementary education with an emphasis in math and
`
`science. ROA at 400; Tr. at 15. Stephanie loved teaching, not only because she adored children,
`
`
`1 At the time of trial, Stephanie was 39, had been a teacher for eleven years and had taught at
`
`the same school in Teton County for the preceding nine years. ROA at 400; Tr. at 15. She was
`
`also working as a “math interventionist” at Jackson Elementary School and was primarily
`
`working with kindergarten through 5th grade students. Tr. at 15.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`but also because she had the added benefit of being able to spend more quality time with her
`
`family in the summer. Tr. at 27, 113.
`
`Joel had his high school diploma, two years of college, and was trained in “meat
`
`science.” ROA at 402.2 Over the preceding 20 years, Joel had worked his way up in Jackson’s
`
`Fine Dining Restaurant Group and eventually become the vice president of production and a
`
`partner. ROA at 402; Tr. at 161.
`
`In August 2020, Stephanie and Joel separated. Tr. at 165. However, instead of moving
`
`out of the marital home, Joel moved into the home’s basement and lived there for the next
`
`ten months. Id. at 166. During this time, Joel saw TJT daily and, most days, he woke up early
`
`to help get TJT ready before Stephanie took TJT to preschool. ROA at 18; Tr. at 166.
`
`In June 2021, Joel moved out and rented a house in Bondurant, which is roughly a 30-
`
`minute drive from Jackson. ROA at 399; Tr. at 219. In August 2021, Stephanie filed for divorce
`
`and, shortly thereafter, the Parties submitted their Settlement Agreement to the district court. The
`
`terms of which were incorporated into the district court’s September 29, 2021 Decree of Divorce.
`
`ROA at 395; Tr. at 9.
`
`
`
`The Settlement Agreement, and thus the Decree, provided that Stephane and Joel would
`
`share joint legal custody of TJT, but Stephanie would be TJT’s primary physical custodian.
`
`ROA at 72, 93. Joel had visitation every other weekend from Thursday after “daycare or
`
`school” until the following Monday morning, when he would return TJT to daycare or school.
`
`
`2 Joel was 42 at the time of trial.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`ROA at 72, 93, 395. Joel also had visitation with TJT every-other Wednesday afternoon until
`
`Thursday morning. Id.3 In summary, Joel had 10 overnight visitations each month. Id. at 396.4
`
`Although Stephanie and Joel agreed to continue with this schedule throughout the year,
`
`they also agreed that in the summer they would each be given “two weeks of uninterrupted
`
`visitation” with TJT. This way TJT would be able to go on a longer summer vacation with
`
`each parent. ROA at 75, 396.
`
`Additionally, because Stephanie was a teacher and school was not in session during the
`
`summer, they agreed that Stephanie would care for TJT while Joel was working so that he did
`
`not need to find or pay for a babysitter. Id. at 73.5 This meant that Joel typically dropped TJT
`
`off with Stephanie on his way to work around 8:00 a.m., TJT would then spend the day with
`
`Stephanie, and leave when Joel finished his day around 4 or 5:00 p.m. Tr. at 29.
`
`
`3 Stephanie and Joel also agreed that in June of 2025 when TJT turned 7, Joel’s alternating-
`
`weekend visitation would increase by an additional day. ROA at 73; 396. This meant that
`
`instead of waiting for visitation to begin every other Thursday, his visitation would begin
`
`every-other Wednesday. Id. Joel would also continue to have an overnight visitation with TJT
`
`every other Wednesday. Id.
`
`4 Joel and Stephanie also agreed to a standard alternating holiday visitation schedule. ROA at
`
`74-75.
`
`5 If Stephanie was unable to care for TJT during the day, she agreed to give Joel a 72-hour
`
`notice so that he could make alternative arrangements. Id. at 73.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`The Settlement Agreement finally provided that if either Party intended to move further
`
`than 75-miles away from Jackson, the Party wanting to relocate would petition the district
`
`court for a modification. At such time, the district court would “take a fresh look” at custody
`
`and, even though Stephanie had been TJT’s primary physical custodian, that fact would not
`
`result in a presumption that she had a greater right to relocate than Joel. Id. at 74, 76, 397.
`
`When the divorce was finalized, Stephanie remained in the marital home, which had
`
`been TJT’s home since birth and: (1) she continued to provided full custodial care for TJT at
`
`least 20 days per-month, ROA at 396; Tr. at 19-20; (2) she “always” took and picked up TJT
`
`from his daycare or preschool, ROA at 410, Tr. at 13; (3) she cared for TJT during the summer
`
`while Joel was working, Tr. at 29; (4) she kept TJT’s google calendar and modified it to reflect
`
`Joel’s visitation, TJT’s school activities, camps, and sporting activities, ROA at 72; Tr. at 33;6
`
`and (5) she made most of TJT’s medical appointments. ROA at 410; Tr. at 75.7 Under this
`
`arrangement, TJT spent approximately 72% percent of his time with Stephanie. Tr. at 34, 56-
`
`57; see also Exhibit 5 (the 2022-2023 is the summer calendar in which the days highlighted in
`
`yellow were the days that Stephanie helped care for TJT).
`
`While TJT was with Stephanie his days were predictable and routine. Tr. at 13. During
`
`the school year, Stephanie woke TJT up around 6:45 a.m. and they left for school at 7:40 a.m.
`
`
`6 Stephanie testified that both she and Joel made changes to TJT’s google calendar, but she
`
`made the edits and additions “95% of the time.” Tr. at 6, 33.
`
`7 During the Covid-19 pandemic when the schools were closed, Stephanie and TJT were
`
`together all-day, every day. Tr. at 72.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Tr. at 13. At school, Stephanie walked TJT to his classroom and she walked to hers. Id. Because
`
`Stephanie’s classroom was contiguous to TJT’s, she also had the opportunity to see TJT briefly
`
`at recess for a “quick hug” or “hi.” Id. at 13.
`
`When TJT’s preschool ended at 4:00 p.m., Stephanie was always there to pick him up.
`
`Id. TJT and Stephanie would then go sledding, to Astoria Hot Springs, to the children’s
`
`museum, to gymnastics, or they would arrange a “play date” with one of TJT’s friends. Id.
`
`Later, TJT did his nightly routine of reading, bathing, eating dinner, and going to bed. Id.
`
`Undisputedly, Stephanie and TJT were extremely bonded and their relationship grew
`
`tremendously over the years. Tr. at 72. Stephanie loves and adores TJT “more than anything”
`
`and her goal in life was to help provide TJT with a safe and loving environment. Id.
`
`There was also no dispute that Joel had a loving and positive relationship with TJT.
`
`When Joel had visitation, he would pick up TJT from preschool and they would go home to
`
`practice TJT’s Spanish and/or math. Tr. at 180; ROA at 411. On the weekends, TJT and Joel
`
`would go skiing, biking, or snowmobiling. Tr. at 180. Joel also made all of TJT’s dental
`
`appointments. Tr. at 173. Although there was no dispute that Joel was a caring parent, due
`
`either to his work schedule or a misunderstanding, he never exercised his right to have two
`
`consecutive weeks of visitation with TJT in the summer. Tr. at 30-31, 43, 195; Exhibit 11 (Joel
`
`says that he will be unable to take his two weeks).
`
`Regarding their ability to co-parent, Stephanie testified that she was a “good
`
`communicator.” Tr. at 56, 58-59, 121; Exhibit 20 (series of emails). Stephanie also believed
`
`that as time passed after the divorce, her ability to co-parent with Joel had improved and,
`
`generally, they had done pretty well. Tr. at 80, 121. Although Stephanie and Joel did not speak
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`on the phone, using email seemed to work and get the “job done” for TJT. Tr. at 79-80. For
`
`more urgent matters, Stephanie and Joel exchanged text messages. Tr. at 174.
`
`Stephanie also believed that the custodial arrangement had worked so well for them
`
`and for TJT that TJT’s relationship with Joel had improved since the divorce. Tr. at 79. This
`
`was due in part to the “exceptional parenting” that Stephanie and Joel provided, ROA at 405,
`
`along with the smooth, seamless, and consistent custodial rotations, tr. at 25-26. For example,
`
`when Joel needed to travel for work, Stephanie and Joel worked together to rotate days and
`
`make-up missed time. Id. at 25, 46-47, 50-52; Exhibit 14 (agreeable email exchanges regarding
`
`visitation and making up time); Exhibit 15 (same); Exhibit 16 (same); Exhibit 17 (same);
`
`Exhibit 18 (same); Exhibit 19 (positive email exchange regarding TJT and TJT’s visitation
`
`schedule). Stephanie wanted to work hard to accommodate Joel’s schedule and be flexible
`
`because she understood the importance of TJT’s time with Joel. Tr. at 32.
`
`Although no co-parenting relationship is perfect and there had been minor squabbles
`
`between Stephanie and Joel about Stephanie signing TJT up for extracurricular activities
`
`without discussing it first with Joel, when Joel reminded Stephanie that they needed to
`
`communicate about such things, it never happened again. Tr. at 185-87. Joel was also irritated
`
`at Stephanie’s requests to FaceTime TJT at “random times” when he was with TJT -- not
`
`because he believed that Stephanie was being rude or inconsiderate -- but because he believed
`
`that the FaceTime interactions needed to “be more scheduled.” Tr. at 189. Fortunately,
`
`however, Joel believed that when TJT was with Stephanie, Stephanie was “very adaptive” and
`
`happy to accommodate his FaceTime requests. Tr. at 190. Joel also agreed that Stephanie never
`
`did anything drastic like denying or withholding visitation. Tr. at 228.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`In March 2023, Stephanie married Ben Burnham (“Ben”). Tr. at 8. Ben lives in
`
`Michigan and is the vice president of sales and marketing for a medical device company. ROA
`
`at 400; Tr. at 22. Ben also has two daughters from a previous marriage who, at the time of
`
`their wedding, were six and eight. Fortunately, Ben has a very amicable relationship with his
`
`ex-wife and they are able to equally share physical custody of the girls. Tr. at 17, 83, 156, ROA
`
`at 401. Although Ben and his children live in Michigan, he is able to work remotely, which
`
`allowed him to spend a significant portion of the summers in Jackson. ROA at 401; Tr. at 22.
`
`
`
`After Stephanie and Ben met in 2021, TJT was able to get to know Ben and build a
`
`strong and loving bond with Ben and his daughters -- both of whom are now TJT’s step-
`
`sisters. Tr. at 23 (Stephanie testified that TJT loves being with his two step-sisters; 150 (Ben
`
`testified that the relationship between TJT and his step-sisters is “heartwarming” and
`
`“beautiful.”). Joel has also met Ben and when he did, the two of them had a “great
`
`conversation.” Tr. at 194.
`
`
`
`When Stephanie and Ben were engaged to be married, they decided that it would be
`
`best for their family if Stephanie and TJT relocated to Michigan. ROA at 400; Tr. at 84-84,
`
`154. This was because Ben had a home and a very large and close family there (including his
`
`two daughters), Ben’s work was there, and it was likely that Stephanie would easily find a
`
`teaching position in Michigan, perhaps even at TJT’s new school. Tr. at 16, 90-91.
`
`
`
`Therefore, on February 6, 2023, 19-months after Stephanie and Joel’s divorce,
`
`Stephanie petitioned the district court for a modification. ROA at 102-41. The Petition provided
`
`that Stephanie wanted to relocate to Michigan with TJT, who was 4-years-old. ROA at 104. In
`
`response, Joel counterclaimed and maintained that while a move to Michigan would indeed
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`amount to a material change in circumstances, he should have primary custody of TJT and
`
`TJT should remain with him in Bondurant. ROA at 148.
`
`The Trial
`
`
`
`On July 11, 2023, the district court conducted a bench trial, wherein Stephanie and Joel
`
`stipulated that there had been a material change in circumstances that warranted a reopening
`
`of the Decree. ROA at 398.
`
`At the trial, Stephanie testified that she was expecting a baby with Ben, who was
`
`anticipated to arrive on September 20, 2023. Tr. at 8-9. Stephanie also testified that while a
`
`move to Michigan would indisputably create a transition for TJT, she was hopeful that the
`
`transition would be easier because TJT had yet to start kindergarten. Tr. at 10, 12. This meant
`
`that even if TJT remained in Jackson, he would still need to transition to a new school, with a
`
`new teacher, new classmates, and new routines. Stephanie was also hopeful that it would be
`
`easy for her to find a teaching position in Michigan, but because she was expecting a baby, she
`
`wanted to take a year-long maternity leave so that she could spend more time with TJT and
`
`the new baby. Id. at 16-18; ROA at 400.
`
`
`
`Stephanie also testified that when she and Ben moved, they would live in Ben’s home,
`
`which was in a nice neighborhood full of family, friends, and children. Id. at 16-17. TJT would
`
`have his own bedroom, which he loved, and TJT would be able to spend a significant amount
`
`of time with his new infant sister and his two step-sisters, whom he loved. Id. at 23. Stephanie
`
`thought that with a new baby and with TJT and Ben’s children being so young that it would
`
`be a blessing for them to be together as much as possible. Tr. at 84. As Stephanie has always
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`wanted TJT to be socialized and have friends, she also intended to introduce TJT to the other
`
`neighborhood children, just like she did in Jackson. Id. at 14, 23.
`
`
`
`Although Stephanie wanted to move to Michigan, she and Ben intended to keep her
`
`home in Jackson so that if they ever returned, they would have a place to live with TJT. Id. at
`
`20; ROA at 400. She also intended to spend at least half of the summer in Jackson every year
`
`with TJT, so that she could continue to help Joel provide care to TJT while he was at work.
`
`Tr. at 21-22, 279.
`
`
`
`Joel testified that he wanted TJT to stay in Wyoming with him and that if he had
`
`primary custody of TJT, he would have the freedom and flexibility to modify his work hours
`
`to match TJT’s school hours. ROA at 402. Although Joel had remained single, since 2023, he
`
`had a live-in girlfriend, who had a great relationship with TJT and would also be able to help
`
`him care for TJT. ROA at 402, 413; Tr. at 183-84. Joel also argued that many of the best-
`
`interest factors were neutral because TJT had two loving parents, with whom TJT enjoyed a
`
`close relationship. ROA at 399.
`
`Joel further argued that other factors weighed in his favor because, for example, it
`
`would be very expensive for him to visit TJT in Michigan, tr. at 200-01, and if TJT stayed in
`
`Wyoming, TJT would stay with his peers and attend a “highly competitive, dual-language
`
`immersion” elementary school, ROA at 403. However, because Joel lived 30 minutes from
`
`Jackson, he and TJT would need to leave home between 6:45 and 7:00 a.m. to get to school
`
`on time. Tr. at 219.
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`The District Court’s Decision
`
`
`
`In its Order, the district court found that TJT had “exceptional parents” and because of
`
`that, TJT would “do well” whether he remained in Wyoming or moved to Michigan. ROA at
`
`399, 402. TJT was also “doing exceptionally well” despite the fact that his parents were no
`
`longer married and had their differences. ROA at 405. The court also found that although Joel
`
`and Stephanie had different personalities which provide for unique parenting traits, none of
`
`these traits were troubling or undermined the best interest of TJT. ROA at 402-05.
`
`
`
`The district court also noted that TJT was an “exceptional” child because he had
`
`benefited from the “positive involvement of both parents,” and an “exceptional” pre-
`
`kindergarten education and extra programs. ROA at 403. The district court also found that
`
`both parents were credible and that they both wanted to play a significant role in TJT’s life.
`
`ROA at 408.
`
`
`
`Subsequently, the district court found that a material changed in circumstances had
`
`occurred because of Stephanie’s desire to move to Michigan, her pregnancy, and her marriage
`
`to Ben. ROA at 403-05. The district court also found that TJT’s best interests warranted a
`
`modification in custody and visitation and in doing so, the district court noted that when they
`
`divorced, Stephanie and Joel agreed that they would be considered to be on “equal footing”
`
`and that even though Stephanie had been TJT’s primary custodian, she would not be entitled
`
`to any presumption that she had a greater right to relocate than Joel. ROA at 407.
`
`
`
`In reviewing the mandatory factors set forth in W.S. § 20-2-201(a), the district court
`
`found that these factors were neutral: (1) the ability of each parent to provide adequate care
`
`for TJT, ROA at 412-14 (citing W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(ii)); (2) the relative competency and fitness
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`of each parent, ROA at 414 (citing W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(iii)); (3) the ability and willingness of
`
`each parent to allow the other to provide care without intrusion and respect the other parent’s
`
`rights and responsibilities, ROA at 421-22 (citing W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(vii)); and (4) the physical
`
`and mental ability of each parent to care for TJT. ROA at 423 (citing W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(ix)).
`
`
`
`With regard to the remaining factors, the district court found that although Stephanie
`
`had been TJT’s primary care provider, it was not by the “expansive margin” that she wanted
`
`and the remaining four factors favored Joel. However, in doing so, the district court did not
`
`consider the fact that TJT would soon have a new infant sister or that he had two step-sisters
`
`due to Stephanie’s marriage to Ben.
`
`Specifically, the district court found that:
`
`W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(i): The quality of the relationship TJT has with each parent
`
`
`
`The district court found that Stephanie’s work schedule provided her with the ability
`
`to take TJT to and from school and the benefits of her job allowed her to stay at home during
`
`the summer and provided TJT with admission into a “high-quality preschool” near her work.
`
`ROA at 410. Stephanie had also been TJT’s primary care provider for at least 20 days each
`
`month and during the summer while Joel was at work. ROA at 412.
`
`However, Joel’s employment allowed him to have a predictable schedule that “nearly
`
`match[ed] a schoolteacher” and had made TJT’s dental appointments. ROA at 410. Although
`
`Joel lived 30 minutes away from Jackson, he still actively participated in TJT’s life. ROA at
`
`411. For example, after the Parties’ separation but before he moved out of the home, saw TJT
`
`in the mornings and helped TJT get ready for his day. Id. at 411. After Joel moved to
`
`Bondurant, he continued to spend time with TJT skiing, camping, and biking, along with
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`helping TJT with school. Id. However, Joel was not TJT’s primary custodian and, in the
`
`summers, he had chosen to “prioritize[ ] conflicts with [Stephanie] over spending more time
`
`with TJT,” his relationship with TJT had improved since the divorce. Id. at 411-12.
`
`Therefore, the district court determined that even though Stephanie was and had been
`
`TJT’s primary custodian and she was “favored” in this category, it was not by the “expansive
`
`margin” that she wanted. ROA at 412.
`
`W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(iv): The Parent’s Willingness to Accept Parenting Responsibilities,
`Including the Willingness to Relinquish Care to the Other Parent.
`
`
`
`Even though the district court found that both Stephane and Joel were “exceptional
`
`parents,” were willing to accept their respective parenting responsibilities, and Stephanie had
`
`never withheld or refused to relinquish custody of TJT to Joel, that this factor favored Joel
`
`because Stephanie wanted visitation “on her terms.” ROA at 417. Although the district court
`
`believed that both parents were credible, it also found that the evidence contradicted her
`
`testimony that she was flexible or that she co-parented well. ROA at 415-16. Without
`
`providing any examples and contrary to the evidence in Exhibits 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, the
`
`district court found that Stephanie was “flexible only when she [could] control how [TJT]
`
`spent his time.” ROA at 416.
`
`The district court also did not like Stephanie’s list of “approved” babysitters, which
`
`were inconvenient for Joel, and it was also disappointed by Stephanie’s request to split the
`
`summer in half with Joel instead of offering him more time. ROA at 416-17.
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(v): How the Parents and child can Best Maintain and Strengthen a
`Relationship with Each Other.
`
`
`
`The district court stated that it did not know how the parents could strengthen their
`
`relationship with each other, but that the geographic separation between Wyoming and
`
`Michigan might help them better co-parent. ROA at 417. Nevertheless, it had little hope that
`
`Stephanie’s relationship with Joel would ever be anything more than a “begrudging tolerance.”
`
`ROA at 417-18. Therefore, the district court held that if TJT were placed with Joel, that would
`
`maximize TJT’s relationship with “both parents” and minimizing the loss of a relationship
`
`with either parent. ROA at 418.
`
`W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(vi): How the Parents and Child interact and communicate with each other
`and how such interaction and communication may be improved.
`
`
`
`The district court found that TJT “communicates well with both Parents, and both
`
`Parents communicate well with [TJT].” ROA at 419. However, the district court found that
`
`this factor favored Joel because Stephanie communicates with Joel only “when necessary” and
`
`those communications only addressed the issues she needed resolved. Id. at 420. This finding
`
`is contrary to Stephanie’s testimony that she was a “pretty good communicator” and the
`
`expansive communications found in Exhibit 20. Tr. at 56, 58-59, 121; Ex. 20 (series of emails).
`
`The district court reasoned, therefore, that
`
`if TJT remained
`
`in Wyoming,
`
`communications may improve because this would force Stephanie to “recognize and accept”
`
`that Joel is an exceptional parent who loves and cares for TJT. ROA at 420.
`
`W.S. § 20-2-201(a)(viii): The Geographic Distance between the Parents’ Residences.
`
`
`
`Both Stephane and Joel agreed and, the district court found, that Joel was favored in
`
`this category. ROA at 422-23.
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`The New Order
`
`After considering the factors, the district court held that it was in TJT’s best interests
`
`for Joel to be TJT’s primary physical custodian. ROA at 423. The district court then ordered
`
`that instead of having