Wyoming

Best interests, Divorce grounds, Parental relocation in one jurisdiction reference.

Statutory framework; factor structure: 11. The list is open, with a catch-all at (a)(xi). The absence of an express child-preference factor does not make a child's preference always irrelevant under the catch-all or case law. Subsections (b)–(d) separately address gender, abuse and safety, and custody-form neutrality.

Authority

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a)

Source framework

Statutory

Factor structure

11

Operative language

shall

Catch-all language

yes, (a)(xi)

Presumptions in the original survey

Express anti-presumption, (d)

Child's voice / age rule

n/a — no preference factor

Sources (1)
Research date: August 16, 2026

"Irreconcilable differences in the marital relationship," § 20-2-104

Authority

Wyo. Stat. § 20-2-104 ; § 20-2-105

Grounds without a misconduct showing

"Irreconcilable differences in the marital relationship," § 20-2-104

Other grounds and proof conditions

None (0) ; incurable insanity with two years' confinement, § 20-2-105, is a status ground

Separation

No general separation period identified for the ordinary breakdown route. See the ground and timing conditions.

Timing

Decree not entered less than 20 days from filing, § 20-2-108

Relief without dissolution

Yes, judicial separation § 20-2-106

Sources (1)
Research date: September 8, 2026

Court-made relocation factors. Ordinary modification. 30 days; exceptions apply.

Authority

Wyo. Stat. 20-2-202(a)(iii) (Arnott)

Court test

judicial relocation factors

Burden classification

burden on the party seeking modification (no relocation-specific allocation)

Notice classification

yes

Trigger classification

planned change of home city or state

Effect of silence

No deemed-consent effect identified in the notice statute; modification and order terms are separate

What the court weighs

Modification requires a material change in circumstances since the order and that modification is in the child's best interests under the § 20-2-201(a) factors, which include the quality of each parent-child relationship, each parent's ability to provide care, willingness to support the other's relationship, and 'geographic distance between the parents' residences.' Arnott (2012) rejected any presumption favoring the relocating custodial parent. Case law adds non-exclusive 'relocation factors' that 'may inform' the best-interest decision (how the children fared under the existing arrangement, the relocating parent's motives, whether reasonable visitation is possible for the remaining parent) (Paden, Walsh ¶ 18, citing Arnott). Callaway (2026), an initial custody decision in a divorce, considered a proposed move among the statutory best-interest factors; the Supreme Court affirmed the custody award (¶¶ 30–32, 54). § 20-2-201(a), § 20-2-204(c)

Who carries the burden

Party seeking modification must show the material change and best interests (statute: 'a showing by either parent'). Arnott ¶ 41 places the evidentiary burden on best interests on the parent seeking modification. No shift. § 20-2-204(c). Arnott

Notice and safety exceptions

Yes. In ordering visitation the court shall require either parent who plans to change their home city or state of residence to give written notice 30 days before the move, to the other parent and to the clerk of the district court, stating the date and destination. Domestic-abuse confidentiality carve-out. § 20-2-202(a)(iii)

Which moves trigger the rule

A parent’s plan to change home city or state of residence triggers the §20-2-202(a)(iii) notice requirement. No mileage threshold appears in that provision; ordered domestic-abuse confidentiality remains. Other court-order terms and ordinary modification proceedings are separate.

Objections and the effect of silence

None in the statute. The other parent may petition to modify (§ 20-2-204(c)). Silence has no statutory effect.

The modification threshold

Yes, required, and a relocation can supply it. Arnott ¶ 40 holds a relocation by the primary physical custodian, and factors derivative of it (including the difficulties added distance imposes), may constitute a material change, overruling Watt v. Watt, 971 P.2d 608 (Wyo. 1999), to the extent of the conflict. Watt had attributed a strong relocation presumption to Love v. Love, but Arnott ¶ 33 expressly found no such presumption in Love; ¶¶ 21-22 describe the presumption as established in Watt. It is fact-specific, not automatic. A material change does not by itself require a custody change (Kelly ¶ 12). Later cases found or accepted the move as a material change (Paden, Walsh, Kelly v. Kelly, 2023 WY 48, where the mother admitted it). Cornell v. Mecartney, 2025 WY 97 ¶¶ 28-31: applying the Arnott factors, a custodial parent's three-year-old move from Jackson to Pinedale was not a material change.

Other qualifications

§20-2-202(a)(iii) requires 30-day notice to the other parent and district court clerk for a planned change of home city or state, subject to ordered confidentiality. Modification follows the ordinary test; Arnott (2012) rejected Watt’s presumption for the moving custodial parent. Military: § 20-2-205 allows only temporary modification for a service member's temporary duty, deployment or mobilization, and makes the deployment a neutral factor that cannot alone be a material change on return.

Burden summary

Ordinary modification

Notice summary

30 days; exceptions apply

Trigger summary

Change of home city or state

Sources (8)
Research date: September 29, 2026

From research to organized records.

Explore Steadycase’s case-organization tools and jurisdiction source guides.

Explore Steadycase tools

Wyoming organization guide
Explore Steadycase Compass

Publisher’s products · Separate from sponsorship and editorial research