Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances before a court considers whether modifying custody or visitation is in the child’s best interests.

Ekaterina Nicholaevna Pokrovskaya, a/k/a Yekaterina Pokrovskaia v. Van Genderen Sr. · filed 2025-04-30(c)

To modify an order regarding a child’s care, custody, or visitation, a district court must determine whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c). If the court finds a material change in circumstances, it must determine what, if any, “modification would be in the best interests of the child[.]” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c); see Kimzey v. Kimzey, 2020 WY 52, ¶ 53, 461 P.3d 1229, 1244 (Wyo. 2020).

Section 20-2-204(c) permits a custody modification when a parent shows a material change in circumstances and the modification serves the children’s best interests.

Fergusson v. Fergusson · filed 2002-05-02(c)

A trial court may modify an order concerning the custody of children if either parent shows a material change in cireumstances and the modification would be in the children's best interests pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a) (LexisNexis 2001). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (Lexis-Nexis 2001). ... However, the addition of what would soon be four other children to the equation in addition to friction with the stepfather can be considered a material change in cireumstances sufficient to justify a custody modification.

Section 20-2-204(c) limits the change-in-circumstances inquiry to facts arising after the decree, but permits relevant predivorce evidence when deciding the child's best interests.

Selvey v. Selvey · filed 2004-12-16(c)

While this provision indicates that the district court may not consider pre-divoree evidence when determining whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances, no such limitation has been placed on the evidence available to the district court when making a best-interests determination.

Section 20-2-204(a) allows only parents to petition to modify a custody order.

Wild v. Adrian · filed 2007-04-13(a)

Because § 20-2-204(a) allows only parents to petition to modify a court order regarding custody, the Wilds did not have standing to intervene as of right in the divorce proceeding to modify the original custody determination.

Section 20-2-204(c) permits custody modification when the evidence shows a material change in circumstances and that modification serves the child's best interests.

Gray v. Pavey · filed 2007-05-21(c)

When viewed in this light, we find that sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate a material change in cireum-stances and that an award of primary custody to Father was in the best interests of the child.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances since the existing custody order and a determination that modification serves the children's best interests.

Hayzlett v. Hayzlett · filed 2007-09-18(c)

Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c), modification of child custody is a two-step process. In re TLJ, 2006 WY 28, ¶ 8, 129 P.3d 874, 876 (Wyo.2006). The first step involves a showing of "a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2007); TLJ, ¶ 8, 129 P.3d at 876. The second step requires the court to determine whether a modification will be in the best interests of the children.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a parent seeking custody modification to establish a material change affecting the children, that the change justifies modification, and that modification serves their best interests.

Morris v. Morris · filed 2007-11-02(c)

Under the statute, the party seeking modification of the child custody provisions of a decree has the burden of establishing that a material change in cireumstances which affects the children's welfare has occurred since the decree was entered, the change justifies modification of the decree and modification would be in the children's best interests.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a party seeking to modify custody to show a material change in circumstances since the decree and that modification would serve the children's best interests.

Durfee v. Durfee · filed 2009-01-27(c)

The party seeking to modify the child custody provisions of a divorce decree bears the burden of showing that a material change in cireumstances has occurred subsequent to the entry of the decree. If that showing is made, then the party must also show that modification of custody would be in the best interests of the children.

Section 20-2-204(e) requires a parent seeking to modify custody to show a material change in circumstances since the decree and that modification would serve the children’s best interests.

Zupan v. Zupan · filed 2010-05-07(e)

To achieve this relief, Mother had the burden of showing the district court that there was “a material change in circumstances” since entry of the Decree and “that the modification would be in the best interests of the children pursuant to W.S. 20-2-201(a).” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(e).

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a party seeking custody modification to establish a material change in circumstances since the previous custody determination and show that modification would serve the children's best interests.

Willis v. Davis · filed 2010-11-18(c)

The party seeking to modify custody bears the burden of establishing that a material change in cireumstances has occurred since the entry of the previous custody determination and that the modification would be in the best interests of the children. Section 20-2-204(c).

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances to modify a final custody order, but does not apply to a temporary custody order.

Demers v. Nicks · filed 2016-01-27(c)

Our precedent clearly answers that the statute limits the modification of a final order, not the modification of a temporary order.

Section 20-2-204(c) governs requests to modify a settled custody determination.

Wood v. Wood · filed 2018-08-20(c)

A district court resolves all outstanding issues of a requested custody modification only under the authority of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2017), which sets out the requirements for a district court to reconsider a settled custody determination.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances since the custody order before the court may reconsider custody.

Kimzey v. Kimzey · filed 2020-04-22(c)

Because of the res judicata effect afforded custody orders, a finding of a material change of circumstances since entry of the decree is a threshold requirement.

Section 20-2-204(c) allows a court that finds a material change in circumstances to review both custody and visitation for possible modification.

Austin Gutierrez f/k/a Austin Bradley v. Bradley · filed 2021-12-22(c)

Thus, when the court finds a material change, it may properly review both custody and visitation to determine whether modification of the existing order is warranted.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires the court to consider the factors in § 20-2-201(a) when deciding whether a custody modification is in the child’s best interests.

Kelly v. Kelly · filed 2023-05-24(c)

When deciding if a custody modification is in the best interests of the child, the district court must consider the factors set forth in Wyoming Statute § 20-2-201(a). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c).

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a parent seeking custody modification to show a change after the initial order that affects the child's welfare, warrants modification, and serves the child's best interests.

Bb v. Rsr · filed 2007-01-10(c)

Father, as the party seeking modification of child custody, has the burden of establishing that a change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare has occurred after the entry of the initial decree, that the change warrants modification of the decree, and that the modification will be in the best interests of the child.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare and a finding that modification serves the child’s best interests; proof of harm is not required.

Kes v. Cat · filed 2005-03-10(c)

In order to obtain modification of the divorce decree, Father bore the burden of demonstrating that: (1) a material change in circumstances affecting the Child’s welfare had occurred since the entry of the initial decree, and that (2) modification was in the Child’s best interests. ... No showing of harm to the child is required.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances before a court considers whether modifying custody would serve the child’s best interests.

Clh v. Mmj · filed 2006-03-15(c)

However, it is only during the second step that § 20-2-204(c) requires consideration of the best interests of the child pursuant to § 20-2-201(a). A best interest analysis is not required, nor even necessarily appropriate, to the threshold determination as to whether a material change in circumstances has occurred.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances before a court may consider whether modifying custody is in the children’s best interests.

Arnott v. Paula a/k/a Polly A. Arnott · filed 2012-12-28(c)

The applicability of res judicata has been functionally incorporated as a threshold inquiry under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2009), enacted in 2000, which governs modification of child custody generally.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances before a court may consider whether modifying custody or visitation is in the children's best interests.

Wendy Willis, f/k/a Wendy Davis v. Davis · filed 2013-04-17(c)

However, because there was not a material change of circumstances regarding the custody and visitation order, the district court did not acquire jurisdiction to consider whether a change would be in the best interests of the children.

Section 20-2-204(c) does not require a court to evaluate whether a custody modification serves the children’s best interests when it finds no material change in circumstances.

Olsen v. Candy M. Olsen · filed 2013-09-27(c)

If the court finds no material change in circumstances in the first step, it is not required to take the second step of evaluating the best interests of the children.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a parent seeking custody modification to show a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare before the court may reopen the custody order.

Kappen v. Kappen · filed 2015-01-07(c)

After a thorough review of the record, we find that Father failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a material change of circumstances. Thus, the district court abused its discretion when it reopened and modified the existing custody order.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances before a court considers whether modifying custody or visitation is in the child’s best interests.

Gjertsen v. Haar · filed 2015-04-14(c)

Section 20-2-204(c) mandates a two-step inquiry in deciding whether to grant a petition to modify an order.

Section 20-2-204(c) permits a court to reopen a custody determination and decide the child's best interests once it finds a material change in circumstances.

Dahlke v. Dahlke · filed 2015-05-27(c)

Even if the district court had determined that the only material change was Mother's arrest, as Father argues, it still would have had jurisdiction to reopen the initial custody determination and resolve which custody arrangement would be in the best interests of the children.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare before a court may reopen an existing custody order to consider the child’s best interests.

Carrera Kylee Cook f/k/a Carrera Kylee Moore v. Moore · filed 2015-09-16(c)

The issue of whether there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child is a threshold inquiry which the district court must resolve before it reopens an existing custody order to determine the best interests of the child.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare before a court may modify a custody or visitation order.

ELA v. AAB · filed 2016-10-13(c)

The change in circumstances must affect the welfare of a child before it will be considered sufficient to justify reopening a decree or custody/visitation order.

Section 20-2-204(e) requires a material change in circumstances since the existing custody order before a court may consider whether modification serves the child's best interests.

Paden v. Paden · filed 2017-10-04(e)

Thus, the first inquiry requires the court to determine whether there has been “a material change in circumstances since the entry of the order in question ....” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(e) (LexisNexis 2017). Once such a showing has been made, the court may then consider whether modification would be in the best interests of the children.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances before a court may consider whether modifying custody would serve the child's best interests.

Smith v. Kelly · filed 2019-06-04(c)

In short, unless the district court finds a material change in circumstances, it cannot proceed to the second step-determining whether a modification would be in the best interests of the child.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a parent seeking custody modification to show a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare before the custody order may be reopened.

Brinda v. Walker · filed 2025-01-23(c)

The party seeking to modify custody must show a material change in circumstances affecting the child’s welfare has occurred. ... The district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined no material change in circumstances occurred that justified reopening the custodial order to modify child custody.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change affecting the child’s welfare before a custody order may be modified; failure to follow the order alone is insufficient when the child’s welfare is unaffected.

Kelly Cornell F/K/A Kelly Cornell Mecartney v. Mecartney · filed 2025-09-03(c)

This is not that case because the parties’ failure to comply with the Custody Order does not have a negative or positive effect on DM’s welfare.

Section 20-2-204(c) allows a court to consider changes in a child’s needs and preference together with changes in the parents’ circumstances when deciding whether a material change warrants modifying custody.

Basden v. Cole · filed 2005-11-28(c)

After a comprehensive consideration of all these facts and circumstances taken together, and in light of Daughter’s strongly expressed preference to live with Mother, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a material change in circumstances existed and by awarding primary custody to Mother.

A planned move and its consequences for the children can constitute a material change in circumstances justifying modification of custody.

Renee Michelle Tracy, n/k/a Renee Michelle Buchli v. Tracy · filed 2017-02-22(c)

In any event, we agree with the district court that the planned move to Gillette and the consequences for the children constituted a material change of circumstances not anticipated by the original divorce decree.

Repeated and prolonged violations of a custody order’s visitation provision may support a finding of a material change in circumstances.

Bishop v. Bishop · filed 2017-11-06(c)

The district court properly considered Father’s repeated and prolonged violations of the visitation provision of the decree in finding a material change of circumstances.

Section 20-2-204(c) permits modification of visitation when parents’ communication difficulties affect the children and amount to a material change in circumstances.

Meehan-Greer v. Greer · filed 2018-04-13(c)

Considering the entire record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding the parties' difficulties in communicating about visitation and issues involving the children amounted to a material change in circumstances which affected the children and justified reopening the visitation provisions of the decree.

When one parent contests modification of joint custody, the court must find a material change in circumstances before reopening the order; the parents’ inability to make the arrangement work can satisfy that requirement.

Johnson v. Clifford · filed 2018-06-05(c)

Therefore, the district court was required to determine whether there was a material change in circumstances that would justify reopening the custody order. Consistent with our precedent on joint custody modifications, this material change can be based on facts that demonstrate the parents are unable to make the joint custody arrangement work.

A material change in circumstances may be shown without outward signs of harm to the children; the court may consider a situation’s obvious or natural effects on their welfare.

Jacobson v. Kidd · filed 2018-09-17(c)

A circumstance may have relevance in a child's life before there are outward signs of harm. The district court may take into account the obvious or natural effects of a situation in finding a material change in circumstance.

A material change in circumstances permits the court to reopen a visitation order, including its supervision requirement, and decide what modification serves the child’s best interests.

Taulo-Millar v. Hognason · filed 2022-01-14(c)

The court’s finding that Father’s relocation constituted a material change in circumstances allowed the court to reopen the entire visitation order, including its supervision requirement, and to decide what modification, if any, was in FIH’s best interests.

Section 20-2-204(c) permits modification of custody or visitation when a material change in circumstances affects the child’s welfare and the modification serves the child’s best interests.

Laura Christine Gardels N/K/A Laura Christine Birt v. Bowling · filed 2023-01-19(c)

The district court properly exercised its discretion when it found a material change in circumstances affecting HB’s welfare had occurred since the original order.

Section 20-2-204(c) permits modification when circumstances materially change; a significant curtailment of visitation can qualify even when the decree is ambiguous about the parent’s discretion to limit it.

Amy Elise Evans f/k/a Amy Elise Sharpe v. Sharpe · filed 2023-06-06(c)

Although the decree was ambiguous as to the bounds of Mother’s discretion to limit and reinstate visitation, see supra ¶¶ 22–23, she clearly curtailed visitation between Father and the children over a significant time period. This constitutes a material change in circumstances.

Section 20-2-204(c) permits custody modification upon a material change in circumstances when modification serves the child's best interests; repeated, unreasonable denial of ordered visitation may be evidence of that change.

Fml v. Tw · filed 2007-05-03(c)

Modification of custody is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204 (LexisNexis 2005), which provides in pertinent part: ... In any proceeding in which a parent seeks to modify an order concerning child custody or visitation, proof of repeated, unreasonable failure by the custodial parent to allow visitation to the other parent in violation of an order may be considered as evidence of a material change of cireumstances. ... For the reasons set out above, we affirm the district court's decision to modify custody because, on the face of things, its findings are adequate and we perceive no abuse of discretion.

A visitation order does not reset the starting point for assessing changed circumstances when a court considers modifying an existing custody order.

Harshberger v. Harshberger · filed 2005-08-23(c)

We also note that the July 8, 2003 order was only concerned with visitation, not custody. Mother does not explain why the visitation order should act as a bar on the evidence the court could consider when determining custody. The original custody order set forth in the parties’ 1999 divorce decree was still in effect at the time this proceeding was commenced.

A stipulation changing only visitation does not replace the existing custody order as the “order in question” for measuring a change in circumstances under § 20-2-204(c).

TW v. BM · filed 2006-06-01(c)

Likewise, here, the parties’ 2002 stipulation altered only visitation, not custody. Thus, the initial custody order, entered in 1998, was still in effect when father filed the present petition to modify custody. Therefore, the 1998 order was “the order in question” pursuant to § 20-2-204(c).

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a material change in circumstances before a court considers whether modifying visitation is in the child’s best interests.

Jensen v. Milatzo-Jensen · filed 2013-03-07(c)

There must be "a material change in cireumstances since the entry of the order" and a finding that "modification would be in the best interests of the children pursuant to W.S. 20-2-201(a)." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2011). Before a court may consider whether a modification of a visitation arrangement would be in the best interest of the child, there must be a material change in cireumstances sufficient to warrant such an inquiry.

Section 20-2-204(c) requires a court that finds a material change in circumstances to determine whether a visitation modification is in the children's best interests.

Booth v. Booth · filed 2019-01-14(c)

Once a court finds a material change in circumstances, it must determine whether a modification is in the children's best interests. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c) (LexisNexis 2017).

Section 20-2-204(c)’s material change of circumstances and best interests standard supplies the good cause showing for a parent seeking to amend or revoke a grandparent visitation order under § 20-7-101(d).

Nicole Ward F/K/A Nicole Belden and Andy Ward v. Brett Belden and Isabel Belden · filed 2023-11-16(c)

We agree and hold that when a parent seeks to amend or revoke a grandparent visitation order they demonstrate good cause under § 20-7-101(d) by showing “a material change of circumstances since the entry of the order in question and that the modification would be in the best interests of the children[.]” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c).

Section 20-2-204(b) permits civil contempt for a willful violation of a custody or visitation order; the violated order must be clear, specific and unambiguous.

Jlk v. Mab · filed 2016-07-20(b)

To find a willful violation that warrants a contempt finding, the order violated must be “clear, specific and unambiguous.” ... Because we find insufficient support in the record and the Custody Order for a finding that Mother willfully violated the Custody Order, we conclude that the district court erred in finding Mother in contempt.

Section 20-2-204 distinguishes enforcement of a custody order from modification; a court cannot modify custody in an enforcement proceeding without a petition to modify.

Sharpe v. Amy Elise Evans F/K/A Amy Elise Sharpe · filed 2025-06-25(b), (c)

However, this was a proceeding to enforce a custody order under Wyoming Statute § 20-2-204(b), not a proceeding to modify a custody order under Wyoming Statute § 20-2-204(c). The district court could not have modified custody absent a petition by either party to do so.

Section 20-2-204(b) allows a party to seek contempt to enforce a divorce decree and permits relief for the party aggrieved by its violation.

Waterbury v. Brenda Waterbury, N/K/A Brenda Frelsi · filed 2017-02-03(b)

Ms. Waterbury filed a motion in the divorce case to hold Mr. Waterbury in contempt of court for failing to pay his share of their daughters’ college expenses and sought enforcement of the divorce decree. That was an appropriate way to enforce the decree pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(b) (LexisNexis 2015) (“A court having jurisdiction . . . may, upon appropriate motion of a party, require a parent to appear before the court and show just cause why the parent should not be held in contempt. . . .”). In a contempt proceeding, the court may award attorney’s fees, costs, and “any other relief as the court may deem necessary under the circumstances to the party aggrieved by the violation of an order.” Section 20-2-204(b).

Section 20-2-204(b) requires a show cause order before a court holds a parent in contempt for violating an order concerning child custody or visitation.

Womack v. Swan · filed 2018-03-13(b)

The district court found Mother to be in indirect contempt of court, without issuing a show cause order on Father's motion. The transgression of § 20-2-204(b) was a serious procedural error that denied Mother her right to due process. For this reason, we find that the district court abused its discretion and reverse its contempt holding against Mother.

Section 20-2-204(b) allows a parent to show that another parent willfully violated a court order, but the parent must carry the burden of proof under the rules of evidence and civil procedure.

Heimer v. Mason William Heimer · filed 2021-08-30(b)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204 provides a parent the opportunity to present a showing that the other parent has willfully violated a court order. It does not release a parent from the obligation to carry her burden of proof in accordance with the rules of evidence and civil procedure.

Section 20-2-204(b) permits an attorney’s fee award when a parent is held in contempt; when the contempt findings are reversed, they provide no basis for fees.

Theresia Renee Breen f/k/a Theresia Renee Black v. Black · filed 2020-07-20(b)

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(b) 4 specifically provides the district court authority to “award attorney’s fees, costs and any other relief as the court may deem necessary under the circumstances” if it finds that the parent is in contempt of court. ... Accordingly, there was no basis for an award of attorney’s fees. We reverse the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Father.

Section 20-2-204(b) permits a court enforcing a custody or visitation order through contempt to award attorney fees and costs to the parent aggrieved by a violation.

Shindell v. Shindell · filed 2014-04-22(b)

Given the district court’s clear authority to award attorney fees and costs under these circumstances, the district court’s order was not erroneous.