Wild v. Adrian

Summary

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed denial of Shannon and Vincent Wilds' petition to intervene in a divorce proceeding and seek custody or guardianship of the children after their custodial parent died. The court held that the Wilds, as nonparents, lacked standing to seek modification of the custody order and were not entitled to intervention as of right or permissive intervention under Wyoming Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The court also held that the district court properly denied intervention without an evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. The Wilds were not entitled to intervene as of right because they lacked a significant protectable interest and lacked statutory standing to petition for modification of the custody order.
2. The Wilds were not entitled to permissive intervention because, notwithstanding a common custody question, they lacked standing under Wyoming law to request modification of the custody order.
3. Wyoming law did not authorize a nonparent to intervene in a divorce proceeding for the purpose of being appointed guardian of the parties' children.
4. The district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying the Wilds' petitions because the record conclusively showed that they were not entitled to intervene.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Wilds had a significant protectable interest and standing to intervene as of right under W.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) in the Adrian divorce proceeding to seek modification of the custody order.
2. Whether the Wilds could permissively intervene under W.R.C.P. 24(b)(2) despite lacking standing as nonparents to seek modification of the custody order.
3. Whether Wyoming law authorized the Wilds to intervene in the divorce proceeding for appointment as guardians of the children.
4. Whether the district court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying the petitions to intervene.

Disposition

affirmed