Parental Duties Unaffected by Guardianship: Clarifying Support, Communication, and Judicial Estoppel under Wyo. Stat. §14-2-309(a)(i)

Introduction

This commentary examines Michael Session v. Michael Nay and Mallory Nay (2025 WY 46), where the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the termination of a father’s parental rights to his son, JDV. The key issues were:

Whether judicial estoppel barred the guardians (the Nays) and the guardian ad litem (GAL) from arguing that termination was in the minor’s best interests after previously advocating continued visitation; and
Whether the termination infringed the father’s substantive due process rights under the Wyoming Constitution and U.S. Constitution.

Parties:

Appellant/Respondent: Michael Session (natural father)
Appellees/Petitioners: Michael Nay and Mallory Nay (legal guardians)
Guardian ad Litem: Natasha K. Martinez
Trial Judge: Hon. Dawnessa A. Snyder, Carbon County District Court

Summary of the Judgment

The Court unanimously affirmed the district court’s order terminating Mr. Session’s parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i). The Court held:

Judicial Estoppel: The doctrine did not bar the Nays or the GAL from advocating termination of parental rights as JDV’s best interests had changed materially since the guardianship order.
Substantive Due Process: The father’s fundamental right to parent was not violated. He was proven, by clear and convincing evidence, to have left JDV in the Nays’ care without support and without meaningful communication for over one year, and any minimal contacts were properly disregarded as “incidental.”

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Rafter J Ranch Homeowner’s Assoc. v. Stage Stop, Inc. (2024 WY 114): Defined the narrow scope of judicial estoppel, applying only to inconsistent factual positions in successive proceedings.
Baker v. Speaks (2013 WY 24): Emphasized that judicial estoppel must not prevent full adjudication of claims on their merits.
Robertson v. TWP, Inc. (1983): Guided against overly technical application of judicial estoppel.
United States v. Supreme Court of New Mexico (10th Cir. 2016): Held that reconcilable statements do not trigger estoppel.
Taulo-Millar v. Hognason (2022 WY 8): Recognized that a child’s best interests may change with material shifts in circumstances.
Arnott v. Arnott (2012 WY 167): Supported the principle that custody determinations depend on changed facts.
Int. of RAA (2016 WY 117): Clarified the elements of § 14-2-309(a)(i) and defined “incidental” contacts as minimal or insignificant communications.
In re Adoption of McMullen (Kan. 1984) & In re Adoption of Baby Girl P. (Kan. 2010): Provided the common-law meaning of “incidental” in termination statutes.
Ailport v. Ailport (2022 WY 43), Vaughn v. State (2017 WY 29), Michael v. Hertzler (1995), Troxel v. Granville (2000): Discussed substantive due process protection of parental rights.

2. Legal Reasoning

The guardianship order obligated the Nays to “facilitate visitation” but did not discharge Mr. Session’s own duty to support and communicate with JDV.
The father was served, had counsel, and consented to guardianship and visitation provisions. That process satisfied procedural due process.
Under § 14-2-309(a)(i), three elements must be proven for at least one year: (1) the child was left in another’s care; (2) no support was provided; and (3) no communication occurred—allowing the court to disregard incidental contacts.
Finder of fact credited visitation logs showing only three of nineteen monthly visits, repeated cancellations by the father, unresponsiveness, and no financial support or cards/gifts.
“Incidental” was properly applied to the father’s minimal, irregular visits and gift-making that never reached the child.
Judicial estoppel did not bar advocacy for termination: the Nays’ and GAL’s best-interests positions evolved as the factual relationship between father and child deteriorated.
Strict scrutiny was satisfied: the State’s compelling interest in protecting JDV’s welfare outweighed the father’s fundamental liberty interest, given clear and convincing evidence of statutory grounds and best interests.

3. Impact

This decision will guide future Wyoming family law cases in several ways:

Courts will reaffirm that guardianship obligations to facilitate visitation do not excuse a natural parent’s statutory duties of support and communication.
Judicial estoppel will remain narrowly confined to truly inconsistent factual positions in successive proceedings; changing positions on a child’s best interests over time are permissible.
Termination petitions under § 14-2-309(a)(i) will continue to require clear and convincing proof of abandonment, non-support, and absence, with incidental contacts excluded.
Judges will be vigilant in re-evaluating a child’s best interests when circumstances materially evolve after prior orders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Estoppel: A doctrine preventing a party from contradicting its earlier sworn factual statements in court, but applied only to truly inconsistent facts.
Incidental Contacts: Casual or minor communications/visits so insignificant they do not meet statutory requirements against “no communication.”
Clear and Convincing Evidence: An intermediate standard stronger than “preponderance” but not as stringent as “beyond reasonable doubt.”
Strict Scrutiny: The highest level of constitutional review applied to fundamental rights, requiring a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored means.
Substantive Due Process: Constitutional safeguard that protects certain fundamental rights—like parenting—against arbitrary government action.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wyoming in Session v. Nay reaffirms crucial principles in termination of parental rights:

Guardianship does not shift a parent’s statutory duties of support and communication;
Incidental, infrequent contacts may be disregarded when determining abandonment under Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(i);
Judicial estoppel is confined to irreconcilable factual shifts and does not bar reconsideration of a child’s best interests as circumstances evolve;
Clear and convincing proof of abandonment and best-interest findings withstand strict scrutiny when afforded full procedural safeguards.

This decision thus fortifies the balance between protecting children’s welfare and respecting parental rights under Wyoming law.