Timely, Particularized “Good Cause” Is Required for Rule 35 Psychological Exams in Custody Cases; Suspicious Post-Filing Transfers to a Nonprofit May Be Valued in the Marital Estate

Introduction

In Brian Ribera v. Jennifer Ribera, 2026 WY 69 (Wyo. June 30, 2026), the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a Park County divorce decree resolving four recurring divorce issues: (1) whether a late-filed motion for psychological examinations under W.R.C.P. 35 should be granted based on allegations of substance abuse and domestic violence; (2) whether the custody award improperly discounted evidence of alcohol abuse or “parental alienation”; (3) whether the property division improperly considered assets titled to other entities (a nonprofit and an LLC); and (4) whether the court could order a shared-possession schedule for the family dog.

The parties, Brian Ribera (Father/Appellant) and Jennifer Ribera (Mother/Appellee), share three minor children. The record included a domestic violence protection order against Father, allegations and evidence of Mother’s prior excessive alcohol use including a 2017 DUI, and disputes over vehicles and other assets that Father transferred to or titled in the name of his nonprofit, Military Mobility, after Mother filed for divorce.

Summary of the Opinion

  • Rule 35: No abuse of discretion in denying Father’s motion for psychological examinations—both because it was untimely and because it failed to show good cause with non-conclusory, current facts.
  • Custody: No abuse of discretion in awarding Mother primary physical custody (roughly 60/40 schedule)—the court considered Mother’s alcohol history and found persuasive evidence of sobriety for 1–2 years; Father did not substantiate alienation claims with record evidence.
  • Property: No abuse of discretion in awarding Mother a cash offset reflecting the value of assets Father transferred to/through the nonprofit during the case and in dividing value reflected in multiple financial accounts (including one in the name of Father’s LLC) in an overall equitable distribution.
  • Dog: No abuse of discretion in ordering the dog exchanged on the children’s schedule where Father testified he would be “absolutely” okay with that; the Court applied invited error.

Analysis

1) Rule 35 Psychological Examinations: Timeliness and “Good Cause” Are Distinct, Demanding Thresholds

Precedents Cited

  • Domenico v. Daniel, 2024 WY 2, 541 P.3d 420 (Wyo. 2024): The Court distinguished Domenico, emphasizing its “unique procedural posture” (bifurcated hearing) and the GAL’s ability to obtain an evaluation “in time to allow the trial schedule to proceed without change.” In Ribera, Father filed less than a month before the scheduled trial and conceded a continuance of “several months” would be needed—supporting denial as untimely.
  • Johnson v. Clifford, 2018 WY 59, 418 P.3d 819 (Wyo. 2018): Reaffirmed that Rule 35 rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and that “good cause” requires more than relevance. Ribera applies Johnson’s warning that conclusory allegations do not establish good cause.
  • Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104 (1964) (and quoted support from Guilford Nat'l Bank of Greensboro v. S. Ry. Co., 297 F.2d 921 (4th Cir. 1962)): Supplied the controlling concept that Rule 35’s “good cause” is a heightened showing beyond Rule 26 relevance, and cannot rest on “conclusory allegations of the pleadings.”
  • Wade v. Wade, 124 So. 3d 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013): Cited (via Domenico) for the proposition that verified allegations must show mental problems that could substantially impact parenting.
  • Pellet v. Pellet, 2022 WY 65, 510 P.3d 388 (Wyo. 2022) and Sears v. Sears, 2021 WY 20, 479 P.3d 767 (Wyo. 2021): Reinforced the abuse-of-discretion framing—whether the district court “could have reasonably concluded as it did.”

Legal Reasoning

The Court treated Father’s request as a discovery motion governed by Rule 35’s strict limits: a mental examination may be ordered “only on motion for good cause.” Ribera clarifies two separate bases for denying such motions in custody litigation:

  1. Untimeliness as an independent, discretionary ground: Even potentially relevant examinations can be denied where the moving party delays and the evaluation would disrupt trial scheduling. The Court stressed that in Domenico the request could be accommodated without delaying trial; here, Father sought examinations requiring months and did not renew his request after trial was continued for a different reason.
  2. Failure to show “good cause” with current, specific facts: Father relied primarily on (a) Mother’s historical alcohol misuse, including a 2017 DUI and videos, (b) older references to alienation concerns in a 2008 proceeding, and (c) generalized assertions about abuse allegations. The Court held that Rule 35 is not triggered by relevance alone; it requires a “greater showing of need,” including that the condition is genuinely “in controversy” and that the examination is necessary (including considering availability of information through other means, such as counseling witnesses).

The GAL’s position mattered contextually: he had already completed his report, was not requesting evaluations, and characterized the allegations as not “new.” That did not create a per se bar to Rule 35 relief, but it supported the district court’s conclusion that Father had not demonstrated a present need sufficient to justify delay and intrusion.

Impact

Ribera reinforces a practical rule for Wyoming family litigation: Rule 35 is not a late-stage tool to “objectify” credibility disputes. Parties seeking psychological examinations should expect denial absent (1) a prompt request aligned with case scheduling and (2) a detailed, fact-supported showing of a current mental condition materially affecting parenting, not merely historic misconduct or generalized accusations. The decision also signals that Domenico is not a broad invitation to seek Rule 35 exams near trial; its timing and evidentiary posture were central to the abuse-of-discretion finding there.

2) Custody: Alcohol Use Evidence Was Considered; Alienation Claims Must Be Proven with Record Evidence

Precedents Cited

  • Amadio v. Amadio, 2025 WY 21, 564 P.3d 259 (Wyo. 2025) and Vassilopoulos v. Vassilopoulos, 2024 WY 87, 557 P.3d 725 (Wyo. 2024): Provided the overarching standard—appellate courts view evidence favorably to the district court, do not reweigh, and reverse only when discretion exceeds bounds of reason or ignores material factors.
  • Kidd v. Jacobson, 2020 WY 64, 463 P.3d 795 (Wyo. 2020) and Womack v. Swan, 2018 WY 27, 413 P.3d 127 (Wyo. 2018): Confirmed alcohol use implicates statutory custody factors on competency/fitness and mental ability. Womack was also used to reference (without adopting) a district-court definition of parental alienation.
  • Smith v. Smith, 2025 WY 128, 580 P.3d 507 (Wyo. 2025): Cited for the rule against reweighing evidence—critical where Father asked the Supreme Court to prefer his interpretation of Mother’s alcohol history.
  • Bloedow v. Maes-Bloedow, 2024 WY 115, 558 P.3d 576 (Wyo. 2024) and Meiners v. Meiners, 2019 WY 39, 438 P.3d 1260 (Wyo. 2019): Used on the “clearly erroneous” standard for factual findings and deference to credibility assessments.
  • Plante v. Plante, 531 A.2d 926 (Vt. 1987) and Armstrong v. O'Connell, 408 F. Supp. 825 (E.D. Wis. 1976): Supported the evidentiary point that proposed findings are not evidence.
  • Davidson-Eaton v. Iversen, 2022 WY 135, 519 P.3d 626 (Wyo. 2022) (quoting Black v. William Insulation Co., Inc., 2006 WY 106, 141 P.3d 123 (Wyo. 2006)): Reiterated that appellate courts do not “scour the record”; parties must cite supporting evidence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court grounded custody review in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a), emphasizing factors including parental fitness and mental ability. The district court’s decision letter explicitly acknowledged: videos/photos/testimony of Mother’s excessive alcohol use, the 2017 DUI, and compromising intoxication incidents in front of the children—then found persuasive evidence that Mother had consumed substantially less or been sober for nearly two years before trial.

On “parental alienation,” Ribera is notable for two reasons:

  1. Conceptual clarity without formal adoption: The Court observed Womack’s referenced definition and then quoted a more detailed “updated definition” from an annotation: alienation involves a child’s “freely and persistently” expressed unreasonable negative feelings toward a parent that are disproportionate to actual experience. The Court did not announce a binding statewide test, but it used the concept to explain why Father’s cited materials did not demonstrate alienation.
  2. Proof and appellate presentation: Father’s briefing leaned “almost entirely” on the GAL’s proposed findings rather than trial evidence. The Court held that such filings are not evidence and that Father’s own belief did not constitute undisputed proof. In effect, Ribera treats alienation claims like other serious custody allegations: they must be supported with concrete record evidence and proper appellate citations.

Impact

Ribera confirms that Wyoming courts may credit evidence of rehabilitation and present functioning even where historical substance misuse is proven, and that appellate review will not second-guess that weighing. For alienation claims, the decision underscores that litigants must present admissible, record-based proof (child statements, evaluator testimony, documented conduct) rather than advocacy documents (proposed findings) or generalized inferences from communication lapses.

3) Property Division: Courts May Account for Suspicious Post-Filing Transfers to a Nonprofit Without Formal “Veil Piercing”

Precedents Cited

  • Bloedow v. Maes-Bloedow, 2024 WY 115, 558 P.3d 576 (Wyo. 2024); Metz v. Metz, 2003 WY 3, 61 P.3d 383 (Wyo. 2003); and Hyatt v. Hyatt, 2023 WY 129, 540 P.3d 873 (Wyo. 2023): Reinforced broad discretion in equitable division and the “shocks the conscience” threshold for reversal.
  • Hall v. Hall, 2005 WY 166, 125 P.3d 284 (Wyo. 2005): Confirmed that property owned before marriage is still subject to distribution under the statute.
  • Morrison v. Rubio, 2022 WY 26, 504 P.3d 251 (Wyo. 2022): Supported evaluating equity based on the overall distribution, not one line item.
  • Breitenstine v. Breitenstine, 2003 WY 16, 62 P.3d 587 (Wyo. 2003): Provided the core analytic framework: when transfers occur during divorce litigation with “badges of fraud” (lack of consideration, close relationship, retention of benefit, suspicious timing, pending litigation), courts may treat the transferred property as part of the equitable marital calculus.
  • Wallop v. Wallop, 2004 WY 46, 88 P.3d 1002 (Wyo. 2024) (citing Neuman v. Neuman, 842 P.2d 575 (Wyo.1992)) and Ransom v. Ransom, 2017 WY 132, 404 P.3d 1187 (Wyo. 2017): Addressed valuation methodology and the trial court’s role when parties provide limited valuation evidence.
  • Pokrovskaya v. Van Genderen, 2025 WY 50, 567 P.3d 1172 (Wyo. 2025) (citing Rush v. Golkowski, 2021 WY 27, 480 P.3d 1174 (Wyo. 2021)): Emphasized the appellant’s burden to provide an adequate record—relevant where not all exhibits were designated on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

Property division proceeded under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-114(a), requiring a “just and equitable” disposition. Father argued the district court improperly attributed to him assets titled to Military Mobility (a purported 501(c)(3)) and treated an LLC’s account as a personal asset. The Supreme Court rejected both characterizations as inconsistent with what the decree actually did.

(A) Transfers to the nonprofit: The district court did not award Mother the nonprofit’s “net earnings” or order transfers of property titled in the nonprofit’s name. Instead, it ordered a cash payment representing the value of vehicles and recreational assets that were used by the family or owned by Father during the marriage and that Father transferred/donated during the litigation. The court’s fraud-inference was supported by evidence mirroring Breitenstine v. Breitenstine “badges of fraud”: lack of consideration (no showing of donation documentation), Father’s close control over the recipient entity, retention of benefits via unfettered access, and suspicious timing shortly after the divorce filing.

(B) Financial accounts and the LLC: The Supreme Court emphasized the decree did not literally give Mother “half of Drive Growth, LLC’s bank account.” Rather, the district court awarded Mother a sum reflecting approximately half of the values shown in Father’s initial disclosures across fifteen accounts (one of which was in the LLC’s name). Under Ransom v. Ransom, where the parties fail to present expert valuation evidence, the trial court may make a reasonable assessment from limited materials (here, tax returns and the disclosed account balance). The Court also relied on the principle of viewing the division as a whole (Morrison v. Rubio), making it harder to overturn one component absent a truly inequitable overall result.

Impact

Ribera strengthens Wyoming trial courts’ ability to neutralize post-filing asset reshuffling—even when the destination is a separate entity such as a nonprofit—by awarding an equitable offset rather than ordering transfers that could implicate third-party title. It also warns litigants that if they insist assets are outside the marital estate and therefore present little valuation evidence, they risk a court adopting a reasonable valuation from the limited record available.

4) The Dog as Property and Invited Error

Precedents Cited

  • Cardenas v. Swanson, 2023 WY 67, 531 P.3d 917 (Wyo. 2023): Reaffirmed that dogs are property under Wyoming law.
  • Thatcher & Sons, Inc. v. Norwest Bank Casper, N.A., 750 P.2d 1324 (Wyo. 1988): Supplied the invited-error doctrine: a party cannot complain on appeal about relief the party requested or induced.

Legal Reasoning

Although Father characterized Sadie as a service animal, the district court found “overwhelming evidence” she was a family pet and ordered exchanges on the children’s schedule. Crucially, Father testified he would “absolutely” be okay with Sadie moving between homes on that schedule. The Supreme Court treated the appellate challenge as barred by invited error, and also noted the decree’s built-in alternative: if Mother did not want the burden of transport, the dog would remain with Father.

Impact

Ribera provides a practical reminder in domestic cases: litigants should treat in-court concessions about requested relief as binding for appellate purposes, especially on discretionary property allocations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • W.R.C.P. 35 “good cause”: A psychological exam is not routine in custody cases. The moving party must show a real, current mental condition is genuinely in dispute and that an exam is necessary—not merely helpful or relevant.
  • Relevance vs. good cause: Many things are “relevant” in family cases; Rule 35 requires more. Courts view compelled mental exams as intrusive and disruptive, so the need must be concrete and specific.
  • GAL (guardian ad litem): An attorney or advocate appointed to represent the children’s best interests. The GAL’s completed report and lack of request for exams supported the conclusion that an exam was not shown to be necessary.
  • Badges of fraud: Circumstantial indicators suggesting a transfer was made to hinder another person’s claim—e.g., no payment received, transfer to an entity you control, keeping the benefit of the asset, and transferring during litigation.
  • “Corporate form” / “veil piercing” concern: Father argued the court needed formal findings to disregard entity separateness. The Supreme Court emphasized the court did not award Mother the entity’s property; it valued assets Father had controlled/used and suspiciously transferred and then awarded an offset.
  • Proposed findings are not evidence: Draft findings submitted by a party (or a GAL) are advocacy documents summarizing their view; they do not substitute for testimony, exhibits, or admitted evidence.
  • Invited error: If you tell the court you want (or will accept) a particular arrangement, you generally cannot appeal claiming that arrangement is reversible error.

Conclusion

Ribera v. Ribera consolidates several practical rules for Wyoming domestic litigation. First, Rule 35 psychological examinations require timely filing and a heightened, fact-specific showing of current need; conclusory allegations and stale history will not suffice, especially when the request would delay trial. Second, on custody, the Supreme Court will defer to a district court that explicitly weighs substance-use history against evidence of current sobriety, and it will reject alienation arguments not supported by record evidence. Third, on property, courts may account for suspicious post-filing transfers to controlled entities—including a nonprofit—through equitable valuation and offsets, guided by fraud “badges” analysis. Finally, parties cannot challenge on appeal the very relief they agreed to at trial, as shown by the dog-sharing order upheld under invited error.