Introduction

Ekaterina Nicholaevna Pokrovskaya (“Mother”) and Eric Van Genderen Sr. (“Father”) were divorced in 2016 in Teton County, Wyoming. The stipulated decree awarded Father sole custody of their minor child, EVG, with Mother granted visitation and travel expense assistance. Since the decree, Father and EVG relocated repeatedly across multiple countries, while Mother remained in Russia. In June 2022, Mother petitioned the Wyoming district court to modify visitation, accusing Father of parental alienation and of thwarting her court-ordered contact. The district court found a material change of circumstances, fashioned a detailed “graduated visitation” schedule—including supervised visits, unsupervised weekends, summer blocks, and video calls—and shifted initial travel costs to Father and later to Mother. Mother’s motion to alter or amend was denied, and she appealed pro se. Father did not cross-appeal.

On April 30, 2025, the Wyoming Supreme Court (Gray, J.) considered whether: (1) Mother’s appeal was timely; (2) the district court had jurisdiction; and (3) the court abused its discretion in structuring the modified visitation order. The Supreme Court affirmed in all respects.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Appeal Timeliness: Under Wyoming R. App. P. 2.01 and 2.02, Mother’s post–judgment motion under W.R.C.P. 59 tolled the 30-day appeal clock. The order denying that motion issued May 8, 2024, and Mother filed her notice of appeal on June 6, 2024—within 30 days.

2. Jurisdiction: Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-203(a), the same Wyoming court that entered the original 2016 decree retained continuing subject-matter jurisdiction to modify custody and visitation. Mother’s failure to attach a certified copy of the original decree did not divest jurisdiction, nor did any Hague Convention requirement.

3. Abuse of Discretion: Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard (Bailey v. Bailey, 2024 WY 65), the Court upheld the district court’s findings of a material change and its detailed best-interest analysis under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-201(a). The graduated schedule—immediate weekly calls, monthly supervised weekends, then incremental unsupervised visitations culminating in alternating holidays and two summer weeks—was sufficiently clear and tailored to address parental alienation and long-distance challenges. The shift of initial travel costs to Father (transition period) and later to Mother was not unreasonable.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Koch v. Gray, 2024 WY 41: Timeliness of appeal and untimely cross-appeals.
• W.R.A.P. 2.01–2.02: Tolling of appeal deadlines by post-judgment motions.
• Brush v. Davis, 2013 WY 161: Continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA § 20-2-203.
• Kimzey v. Kimzey, 2020 WY 52: Material change and best-interest framework.
• Bailey v. Bailey, 2024 WY 65 & Hyatt v. Hyatt, 2023 WY 129: Abuse of discretion standard.
• Rataiczak v. Parker, 2024 WY 70 & Edwards v. Edwards, 2020 WY 35: Necessity of detailed visitation orders.
• Durham v. Durham, 2003 WY 95 & In re Paternity of IC, 971 P.2d 603: Allocation of visitation travel costs.

Legal Reasoning

Abuse of Discretion: The Supreme Court emphasized that a district court “acts within its discretion” if its decision is reasonable, applies correct legal principles, and weighs material factors (Bailey v. Bailey). It defers to factual findings supported by the record, drawing all favorable inferences for the prevailing party (Ianelli v. Camino).

Timeliness: Under W.R.A.P. 2.01(a), an appeal must be lodged within 30 days of the appealable order. Rule 2.02(a) halts this period when certain post-judgment motions are pending; Rule 2.02(b) restarts the 30-day clock upon denial. Mother’s motion under W.R.C.P. 59 tolled the clock until May 8, and her June 6 notice of appeal fell within the new 30-day window.

Jurisdiction: The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) grants continuing subject-matter jurisdiction to the court that issued the original custody order (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-203(a)). A certified copy requirement (subsection (c)) is procedural and does not nullify jurisdiction if omitted. Hague Convention compliance was not jurisdictional here, and Bahrain proceedings did not strip Wyoming of power to modify its decree.

Best Interests & Material Change: Upon finding Father’s obstruction and parental alienation constituted a material change (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-204(c)), the district court turned to the best-interest factors listed in § 20-2-201(a). It made individualized findings on each factor—relationship quality, parental fitness, willingness, geographic distance, communication, respect and more—and concluded that a carefully staged visitation plan was warranted to protect the child’s welfare while promoting Mother-child bonding.

Visitation Detail Requirement: Wyoming law mandates visitation orders be “in enough detail to promote understanding and compliance” (Rataiczak v. Parker). Here the schedule specified exact dates, visit lengths, conditions for progression, phone-call times, and obligations to exchange contact information, ensuring enforceability and reducing ambiguity.

Cost Allocation: District courts may allocate travel expenses for visitation (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-2-202(a)(ii)). The initial allocation to Father reflects his travel-related conduct; subsequent allocation to Mother recognizes her custodial contributions and aligns incentives for exercise of visitation rights.

Impact

This decision clarifies how Wyoming courts handle international custody modifications when one parent resides abroad and the other relocates frequently. It confirms:

• Continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA survives foreign petitions and procedural omissions.
• Appeal deadlines toll for post-judgment motions, restarting only upon denial.
• District courts enjoy broad, fact-intensive discretion in crafting graduated visitation that balances child safety, parental alienation risks, and long-distance logistics.
• Visitation orders must be explicit on timing, progression conditions, communication methods, and cost-sharing to be enforceable.

Future litigants and courts will look to this case for guidance in cross-border custody disputes, the use of graduated visitation, and the interplay between procedural rules and substantive family law principles.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Tolling of Appeal Deadlines: Filing certain post-judgment motions pauses the 30-day appeal clock; it resumes only after the court rules on them.
• Continuing Jurisdiction (UCCJEA): The state that issued the original custody order can modify it, regardless of the child or parent moving elsewhere.
• Abuse of Discretion: Courts defer to trial judges’ reasonable decisions; reversal requires showing a decision was outside the bounds of reason or ignored key law or facts.
• Best-Interest Factors: A statutory list (e.g., parent-child relationship, parental fitness, geographic distance) guides whether and how to modify custody or visitation.
• Graduated Visitation: A phased approach—supervised visits, gradually increasing unsupervised time, ending in longer holiday or summer blocks—to reestablish parent-child bonds safely.
• Cost Allocation: Courts can require one parent to bear travel expenses, especially when the parent’s conduct necessitated the travel arrangement.

Conclusion

Ekaterina Pokrovskaya v. Van Genderen establishes robust guidance for Wyoming courts confronting international and long-distance custody modifications. It reaffirms the tolling principles for appeals, confirms continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, and underscores the district court’s wide discretion—tempered by detailed statutory best-interest factors—in crafting enforceable, graduated visitation schedules. The decision will shape future family law disputes involving cross-border relocations, parental alienation, and the interplay of procedural and substantive rules in ensuring a child’s welfare remains paramount.