Mother brief in Wyoming

2011See Ar-agon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, 31 , 104 P.3d 756, 765 (Wyo.2005); see also Maher v. Maher, 2004 WY 62, ¶ 18 , 90 P.3d 739, 745 (Wyo.2004).

2011See Ar-agon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, 31 , 104 P.3d 756, 765 (Wyo.2005); see also Maher v. Maher, 2004 WY 62, ¶ 18 , 90 P.3d 739, 745 (Wyo.2004).

2011See Ar-agon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, 31 , 104 P.3d 756, 765 (Wyo.2005); see also Maher v. Maher, 2004 WY 62, ¶ 18 , 90 P.3d 739, 745 (Wyo.2004).

2011See Ar-agon v. Aragon, 2005 WY 5, 31 , 104 P.3d 756, 765 (Wyo.2005); see also Maher v. Maher, 2004 WY 62, ¶ 18 , 90 P.3d 739, 745 (Wyo.2004).

2003"Parents are entitled to due process in custody and visitation matters, which includes adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard." Matter of SAJ, 942 P.2d 407, 409 (Wyo.1997) (''The district court abused its discretion in modifying Mother's visi- ' tation ... without affording a meaningful opportunity to be heard or otherwise providing for development of the evidentiary record." Id. at 410 .).

2003"Parents are entitled to due process in custody and visitation matters, which includes adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard." Matter of SAJ, 942 P.2d 407, 409 (Wyo.1997) (''The district court abused its discretion in modifying Mother's visi- ' tation ... without affording a meaningful opportunity to be heard or otherwise providing for development of the evidentiary record." Id. at 410 .).

2025Id. [¶8] Mother’s brief fails to comply with the rules of appellate procedure in multiple essential respects.

2012See Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9 , 46 P.3d 295, 298 (Wyo.2002). [¶ 12] In Mother's first and second issues, she makes vague allegations of improper conduct and unfair treatment by the court at the hearings on her petition.

2026Bernard v. State, 2025 WY 66, ¶ 13 , 570 P.3d 416 , 420 (Wyo. 2025); see also Ferguson v. State, 2013 WY 117, ¶ 11 , 309 P.3d 831, 834 (Wyo. 2013) (“If a party fails to show good 2 II.

2026Bernard v. State, 2025 WY 66, ¶ 13 , 570 P.3d 416 , 420 (Wyo. 2025); see also Ferguson v. State, 2013 WY 117, ¶ 11 , 309 P.3d 831, 834 (Wyo. 2013) (“If a party fails to show good 2 II.

2026See Budd-Falen Law Offices, P.C. v. Rocky Mountain Recovery, Inc., 2005 WY 77, ¶ 17 , 114 P.3d 1284, 1289 (Wyo. 2005) (disregarding elements of a reply brief that addressed issues not raised by the appellee); see also Black v. William Insulation Co., Inc., 2006 WY 106, ¶ 20 , 141 P.3d 123, 131 (Wyo. 2006) (declining to consider issues raised in reply brief due to the lack of cogent argument). [¶11] Father is represented by counsel in this appeal.

2026See Budd-Falen Law Offices, P.C. v. Rocky Mountain Recovery, Inc., 2005 WY 77, ¶ 17 , 114 P.3d 1284, 1289 (Wyo. 2005) (disregarding elements of a reply brief that addressed issues not raised by the appellee); see also Black v. William Insulation Co., Inc., 2006 WY 106, ¶ 20 , 141 P.3d 123, 131 (Wyo. 2006) (declining to consider issues raised in reply brief due to the lack of cogent argument). [¶11] Father is represented by counsel in this appeal.

2026“We apply strict standards to formal pleadings drafted by attorneys but afford pro se parties some leniency in their filings.” Adams v. Gallegos, 2025 WY 71, ¶ 7 , 571 P.3d 337 , 338 (Wyo. 2025) (citing Hodson v. Sturgeon, 2017 WY 150, ¶ 3 , 406 P.3d 1264, 1265 (Wyo. 2017)).

2026“We apply strict standards to formal pleadings drafted by attorneys but afford pro se parties some leniency in their filings.” Adams v. Gallegos, 2025 WY 71, ¶ 7 , 571 P.3d 337 , 338 (Wyo. 2025) (citing Hodson v. Sturgeon, 2017 WY 150, ¶ 3 , 406 P.3d 1264, 1265 (Wyo. 2017)).

2026See Budd-Falen Law Offices, P.C. v. Rocky Mountain Recovery, Inc., 2005 WY 77, ¶ 17 , 114 P.3d 1284, 1289 (Wyo. 2005) (disregarding elements of a reply brief that addressed issues not raised by the appellee); see also Black v. William Insulation Co., Inc., 2006 WY 106, ¶ 20 , 141 P.3d 123, 131 (Wyo. 2006) (declining to consider issues raised in reply brief due to the lack of cogent argument). [¶11] Father is represented by counsel in this appeal.

2026See Budd-Falen Law Offices, P.C. v. Rocky Mountain Recovery, Inc., 2005 WY 77, ¶ 17 , 114 P.3d 1284, 1289 (Wyo. 2005) (disregarding elements of a reply brief that addressed issues not raised by the appellee); see also Black v. William Insulation Co., Inc., 2006 WY 106, ¶ 20 , 141 P.3d 123, 131 (Wyo. 2006) (declining to consider issues raised in reply brief due to the lack of cogent argument). [¶11] Father is represented by counsel in this appeal.

2025Hultgren v. State, 2011 WY 139, ¶ 6, n.1 ; 261 P.3d 753, 754, n.1 (Wyo. 2011) (noting this Court can take judicial notice of orders not included in the record, because a court may “take judicial notice of its own records in the case before it or in a case closely related to it.” State in Interest of C., 638 P.2d 165, 172, n. 10 (Wyo.1981); Wayt v. State, 912 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Wyo.1996)). 1 [¶5] The district court denied Mother’s motion for an order to show cause.

2025Hultgren v. State, 2011 WY 139, ¶ 6, n.1 ; 261 P.3d 753, 754, n.1 (Wyo. 2011) (noting this Court can take judicial notice of orders not included in the record, because a court may “take judicial notice of its own records in the case before it or in a case closely related to it.” State in Interest of C., 638 P.2d 165, 172, n. 10 (Wyo.1981); Wayt v. State, 912 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Wyo.1996)). 1 [¶5] The district court denied Mother’s motion for an order to show cause.

2025Hultgren v. State, 2011 WY 139, ¶ 6, n.1 ; 261 P.3d 753, 754, n.1 (Wyo. 2011) (noting this Court can take judicial notice of orders not included in the record, because a court may “take judicial notice of its own records in the case before it or in a case closely related to it.” State in Interest of C., 638 P.2d 165, 172, n. 10 (Wyo.1981); Wayt v. State, 912 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Wyo.1996)). 1 [¶5] The district court denied Mother’s motion for an order to show cause.

2025Hultgren v. State, 2011 WY 139, ¶ 6, n.1 ; 261 P.3d 753, 754, n.1 (Wyo. 2011) (noting this Court can take judicial notice of orders not included in the record, because a court may “take judicial notice of its own records in the case before it or in a case closely related to it.” State in Interest of C., 638 P.2d 165, 172, n. 10 (Wyo.1981); Wayt v. State, 912 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Wyo.1996)). 1 [¶5] The district court denied Mother’s motion for an order to show cause.

2024See Shindell, 2014 WY 51, ¶ 29 , 322 P.3d at 1278 (“We agree that Mother’s brief is wanting in several respects.

2024See Shindell, 2014 WY 51, ¶ 29 , 322 P.3d at 1278 (“We agree that Mother’s brief is wanting in several respects.

2024See also CL v. ML, 2015 WY 80 , ¶¶ 21-23, 351 P.3d 272, 279 (Wyo. 2015) (because travel restriction expired, Mother’s claim that it violated her constitutional right to travel is moot); State, in Int. of K.B., 2017 UT App 210, ¶ 1 , 407 P.3d 1084 , 1085 n.1 (holdings related to child who was no longer a minor are moot); In re Marriage of White, No. E059861, 2015 WL 215447 , at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2015) (“child related issues were moot since [the parties’] daughter was no longer a minor at the time of the . . . judgment”); Dressel v. Dressel, 221 S.W.3d 475 , 477 n.2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)

2024See also CL v. ML, 2015 WY 80 , ¶¶ 21-23, 351 P.3d 272, 279 (Wyo. 2015) (because travel restriction expired, Mother’s claim that it violated her constitutional right to travel is moot); State, in Int. of K.B., 2017 UT App 210, ¶ 1 , 407 P.3d 1084 , 1085 n.1 (holdings related to child who was no longer a minor are moot); In re Marriage of White, No. E059861, 2015 WL 215447 , at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2015) (“child related issues were moot since [the parties’] daughter was no longer a minor at the time of the . . . judgment”); Dressel v. Dressel, 221 S.W.3d 475 , 477 n.2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)

2024See also CL v. ML, 2015 WY 80 , ¶¶ 21-23, 351 P.3d 272, 279 (Wyo. 2015) (because travel restriction expired, Mother’s claim that it violated her constitutional right to travel is moot); State, in Int. of K.B., 2017 UT App 210, ¶ 1 , 407 P.3d 1084 , 1085 n.1 (holdings related to child who was no longer a minor are moot); In re Marriage of White, No. E059861, 2015 WL 215447 , at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2015) (“child related issues were moot since [the parties’] daughter was no longer a minor at the time of the . . . judgment”); Dressel v. Dressel, 221 S.W.3d 475 , 477 n.2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)

2024See also CL v. ML, 2015 WY 80 , ¶¶ 21-23, 351 P.3d 272, 279 (Wyo. 2015) (because travel restriction expired, Mother’s claim that it violated her constitutional right to travel is moot); State, in Int. of K.B., 2017 UT App 210, ¶ 1 , 407 P.3d 1084 , 1085 n.1 (holdings related to child who was no longer a minor are moot); In re Marriage of White, No. E059861, 2015 WL 215447 , at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 15, 2015) (“child related issues were moot since [the parties’] daughter was no longer a minor at the time of the . . . judgment”); Dressel v. Dressel, 221 S.W.3d 475 , 477 n.2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)

2023Ruiz v. Fribourg, 2022 WY 157, ¶ 18 , 521 P.3d 329, 334 (Wyo. 2022) (citation omitted). 5 The party claiming an infringement of his right to due process has the burden of demonstrating both that he has a protected interest and that such interest has been affected in an impermissible way.

2023Ruiz v. Fribourg, 2022 WY 157, ¶ 18 , 521 P.3d 329, 334 (Wyo. 2022) (citation omitted). 5 The party claiming an infringement of his right to due process has the burden of demonstrating both that he has a protected interest and that such interest has been affected in an impermissible way.

2021See, e.g., Whitney, 892 P.2d at 794 (finding that there were not sufficient grounds to set aside a default when appellant testified that he failed to answer the complaint because he was unable to hire an attorney); Matter of Injury to Seevers, 720 P.2d 899, 903 (Wyo. 1986) (“failure to consult an attorney for nearly two months is not such excusable neglect as would justify relief”); Booth, 548 P.2d at 1254-55 (failure to hire an attorney until fifty-three days following service of the complaint does not equate to the actions of a reasonable prudent man and there is no abuse of discretion in de

2021See ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 24 , 382 P.3d 45 , 50-51 (Wyo. 2016) (noting that nothing in the record indicated appellant asked for a continuance); Booth v. Booth, 2019 WY 5 , ¶ 17, 432 P.3d 902, 908 (Wyo. 2019) (noting that appellant never requested a continuance).

2021See ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 24 , 382 P.3d 45 , 50-51 (Wyo. 2016) (noting that nothing in the record indicated appellant asked for a continuance); Booth v. Booth, 2019 WY 5 , ¶ 17, 432 P.3d 902, 908 (Wyo. 2019) (noting that appellant never requested a continuance).

2021See, e.g., Whitney, 892 P.2d at 794 (finding that there were not sufficient grounds to set aside a default when appellant testified that he failed to answer the complaint because he was unable to hire an attorney); Matter of Injury to Seevers, 720 P.2d 899, 903 (Wyo. 1986) (“failure to consult an attorney for nearly two months is not such excusable neglect as would justify relief”); Booth, 548 P.2d at 1254-55 (failure to hire an attorney until fifty-three days following service of the complaint does not equate to the actions of a reasonable prudent man and there is no abuse of discretion in de

2021See, e.g., Whitney, 892 P.2d at 794 (finding that there were not sufficient grounds to set aside a default when appellant testified that he failed to answer the complaint because he was unable to hire an attorney); Matter of Injury to Seevers, 720 P.2d 899, 903 (Wyo. 1986) (“failure to consult an attorney for nearly two months is not such excusable neglect as would justify relief”); Booth, 548 P.2d at 1254-55 (failure to hire an attorney until fifty-three days following service of the complaint does not equate to the actions of a reasonable prudent man and there is no abuse of discretion in de

2021“Rule 10.05 sanctions are generally not available for challenges to discretionary rulings, unless ‘an appeal lacks cogent argument, there is an absence of pertinent legal authority to support the issues, or there is a failure to adequately cite to the record.’” Carbaugh v. Nichols, 2014 WY 2, ¶ 23 , 315 P.3d 1175, 1180 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 937, 940 (Wyo. 2003)). [¶24] While we do find that portions of Mother’s brief lacked citation to proper legal authority and cogent argument, we cannot certify that Mother had no reasonable cause for her appeal base

2021“Rule 10.05 sanctions are generally not available for challenges to discretionary rulings, unless ‘an appeal lacks cogent argument, there is an absence of pertinent legal authority to support the issues, or there is a failure to adequately cite to the record.’” Carbaugh v. Nichols, 2014 WY 2, ¶ 23 , 315 P.3d 1175, 1180 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 937, 940 (Wyo. 2003)). [¶24] While we do find that portions of Mother’s brief lacked citation to proper legal authority and cogent argument, we cannot certify that Mother had no reasonable cause for her appeal base

2021See Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249, 254 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)) (appellant’s affidavit containing a personal narrative of his experiences to support an employment discrimination claim not a “written instrument” for the purpose of F.R.C.P. 10(c)); see also Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 467 (7th 3 The district court ruled it would “strike all of those e-mail attachments.” Although W.R.C.P. 12(f) authorizes a court to strike materials from a pleading for the reasons set forth in that rule, it is more accurate to say that the district court simply ruled

2021See ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 24 , 382 P.3d 45 , 50-51 (Wyo. 2016) (noting that nothing in the record indicated appellant asked for a continuance); Booth v. Booth, 2019 WY 5 , ¶ 17, 432 P.3d 902, 908 (Wyo. 2019) (noting that appellant never requested a continuance).

2021See ELA v. AAB, 2016 WY 98, ¶ 24 , 382 P.3d 45 , 50-51 (Wyo. 2016) (noting that nothing in the record indicated appellant asked for a continuance); Booth v. Booth, 2019 WY 5 , ¶ 17, 432 P.3d 902, 908 (Wyo. 2019) (noting that appellant never requested a continuance).

2021See Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249, 254 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)) (appellant’s affidavit containing a personal narrative of his experiences to support an employment discrimination claim not a “written instrument” for the purpose of F.R.C.P. 10(c)); see also Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 467 (7th 3 The district court ruled it would “strike all of those e-mail attachments.” Although W.R.C.P. 12(f) authorizes a court to strike materials from a pleading for the reasons set forth in that rule, it is more accurate to say that the district court simply ruled

2021“Rule 10.05 sanctions are generally not available for challenges to discretionary rulings, unless ‘an appeal lacks cogent argument, there is an absence of pertinent legal authority to support the issues, or there is a failure to adequately cite to the record.’” Carbaugh v. Nichols, 2014 WY 2, ¶ 23 , 315 P.3d 1175, 1180 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 937, 940 (Wyo. 2003)). [¶24] While we do find that portions of Mother’s brief lacked citation to proper legal authority and cogent argument, we cannot certify that Mother had no reasonable cause for her appeal base

2021“Rule 10.05 sanctions are generally not available for challenges to discretionary rulings, unless ‘an appeal lacks cogent argument, there is an absence of pertinent legal authority to support the issues, or there is a failure to adequately cite to the record.’” Carbaugh v. Nichols, 2014 WY 2, ¶ 23 , 315 P.3d 1175, 1180 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Welch v. Welch, 2003 WY 168, ¶ 13 , 81 P.3d 937, 940 (Wyo. 2003)). [¶24] While we do find that portions of Mother’s brief lacked citation to proper legal authority and cogent argument, we cannot certify that Mother had no reasonable cause for her appeal base

2021See Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249, 254 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)) (appellant’s affidavit containing a personal narrative of his experiences to support an employment discrimination claim not a “written instrument” for the purpose of F.R.C.P. 10(c)); see also Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 467 (7th 3 The district court ruled it would “strike all of those e-mail attachments.” Although W.R.C.P. 12(f) authorizes a court to strike materials from a pleading for the reasons set forth in that rule, it is more accurate to say that the district court simply ruled