Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-202
Visitation.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WY-LEGwyoleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The court may order visitation it deems in the best
interests of each child and the court shall:
(i) Order visitation in enough detail to promote
understanding and compliance;
(ii) Provide for the allocation of the costs of
transporting each child for purposes of visitation;
(iii) Require either parent who plans to change their
home city or state of residence, to give written notice thirty
(30) days prior to the move, both to the other parent and to the
clerk of district court stating the date and destination of the
move. In the event a confidentiality order has been entered
pursuant to W.S. 35-21-112 or any other court order allowing a
party to maintain confidentiality of addresses or other
information identifying the residence of the victim of domestic
abuse, the address, city or state of residence or other
information identifying the residence of the victim of domestic
abuse shall remain confidential.
(b) When considering an order for visitation, there shall
be a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the best interests
of a child to grant unsupervised visitation to a parent who is
required to register as a sex offender under W.S. 7-19-301
through 7-19-310.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Fml v. Tw
Fml v. Tw (2007)
“[1] Mother also contends that the district court erred by failing to establish visitation that includes details necessary to promote understanding and compliance as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a) (LexisNexis 2005).”
IC v. DW (2015)
“Does the decree fail to set forth a visitation plan in sufficient detail to promote understanding and compliance, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i) (LexisNexis 2015)7 FACTS [¶ 8] In February of 2013, the parties had a sexual encounter in Portland, Oregon.”
Bruegman v. Bruegman (2018)
“The visitation provision in the stipulation, awarding "reasonable visitation rights" to the non-custodial parent, did not conform to the requirement of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 to "order visitation in enough detail to promote understanding and compliance.”
Roemmich v. Roemmich (2010)
“Section 20-2-202 provides in relevant part: § 20-2-202.”
Long v. Long (2018)
“[¶26] Furthermore, the provision regarding visitation contained in the stipulated decree does not meet the requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (Lexis Nexis 2017).”
Womack v. Swan (2018)
“" 7 As to its custody determination, the court stated: "it is in [the children's] best interests, based on the factors in W.S. § 20-2-202 [sic], to make [Father] the primary custodian.”
Meehan-Greer v. Greer (2018)
“See also Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (LexisNexis 2017) (stating that the court shall "[o]rder visitation in enough detail to promote understanding and compliance").”
Durham v. Durham (2003)
“We first note that the district court has statutory authority to allocate the costs of transporting the children pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i1) (LexisNexis 2003).”
Bryan Pettengill v. Cortni Castellow (2022)
“He asserts this oversight leaves him with only physical visitation every other weekend and permits Mother to deny him telephone/remote visitation with “no legal recourse.” [¶24] A district court “may order visitation it deems in the best interests of each child and the court…”
Kimberly Shindell v. Roger Shindell (2014)
“The only specific provision we can locate was set out in an interim order and states that Mother shall pay for the girls’ plane tickets for winter break 2012-2013 and spring break 2013.”
Aimee V. Kidd F/K/A Aimee V. Jacobson v. Matthew T. Jacobson (2020)
“Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i) (LexisNexis 2019) (“The court may order visitation it deems in the best interests of each child and the court shall [o]rder visitation in enough detail to promote understanding and compliance[.”
Adrienne Janel Edwards v. Andy Edwards (2020)
“[¶20] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i) (LexisNexis 2019) requires a court to “[o]rder visitation in enough detail to promote understanding and compliance[.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-202(a) — 1 case
IC v. DW (2015)
“Does the decree fail to set forth a visitation plan in sufficient detail to promote understanding and compliance, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i) (LexisNexis 2015)7 FACTS [¶ 8] In February of 2013, the parties had a sexual encounter in Portland, Oregon.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-202(a)(1) — 2 cases
Roemmich v. Roemmich (2010)
“Section 20-2-202 provides in relevant part: § 20-2-202.”
IC v. DW (2015)
“Does the decree fail to set forth a visitation plan in sufficient detail to promote understanding and compliance, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i) (LexisNexis 2015)7 FACTS [¶ 8] In February of 2013, the parties had a sexual encounter in Portland, Oregon.”
— Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-202(a)(i) — 4 cases
Durham v. Durham (2003)
“We first note that the district court has statutory authority to allocate the costs of transporting the children pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i1) (LexisNexis 2003).”
IC v. DW (2015)
“Does the decree fail to set forth a visitation plan in sufficient detail to promote understanding and compliance, in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202 (a)(i) (LexisNexis 2015)7 FACTS [¶ 8] In February of 2013, the parties had a sexual encounter in Portland, Oregon.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.