Clark v. Alexander
Wyoming Supreme Court
953 P.2d 145 (1998)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
K.C. Clark (plaintiff) and Clifford Alexander (defendant) divorced in 1993. Alexander was granted residential custody of their three children. In 1994, Clark filed a petition to modify child custody based on Alexander’s move to a trailer home. The court appointed the children a guardian ad litem (GAL), who also served as the children’s attorney. To assist the court’s custody determination, the GAL visited and talked to the children, inspected the home, and interviewed various people. Alexander inadvertently tape-recorded a conversation between Clark and the two younger children, and during the recorded conversation, Clark urged the children to express their preference of living with her. Alexander’s counsel informed the GAL of the tape’s existence, and the GAL listened to the recording. The GAL informed Clark’s counsel of the tape. The GAL confidentially consented to the continued recording of the children’s conversations with their mother. At the modification hearing, the GAL was called as Alexander’s witness and testified about the tapes and what she had heard. The trial court continued sole custody of the children in Alexander. Clark appealed, challenging the admission of the GAL’s testimony and propriety of the GAL’s role in the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taylor, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
