Summary 2006 WY 74

Summary of Decision issued June 23, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: In the Interest of ANO: SLB v. JEO

Citation: 2006 WY 74

Docket Number: C-05-13

Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellant: Ann M. Rochelle of Shively, Taheri & Rochelle, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: John M. Burman, Faculty Director; John D. Chambers, Student Intern; UW Legal Services Program, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Chambers.

Guardian Ad Litem: Jacqueline K. Brown, Casper, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the district court abused its discretion in applying the Wyoming Supreme Court precedent from In re Parental Rights of SCN, in holding that Appellant failed to meet the threshold requirement of showing that Appellee placed his daughter in the care of another without provision for the child’s support under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i). Whether a child in the legal and physical custody of a parent pursuant to a divorce decree and for whom the child support payments are being made by a third party due to the impossibility/inability of the non-custodial parent to earn money, has been “supported” under the above statute. Whether a parent seeking to terminate the parental rights of the other parent for failure to communicate for a period of at least one year and who is complicit in the interference with such communication attempts can prevail under above statute.

Holding: SLB AND JEO were divorced in 1999. The divorce decree awarded SLB sole custody of ANO, ordered JEO to make monthly child support payments and allowed JEO visitation with the child.
When the Court reviews a decision terminating parental rights, they apply the strict scrutiny standard and require clear and convincing evidence. The instant case requires the application of the Court’s standards for interpreting statutory language. They look first to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words to determine if the statute is ambiguous. They endeavor to interpret statutes in accordance with the legislature’s intent. Finally, the Court reviews a district court’s decision concerning the termination of parental rights for abuse of discretion.
Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309, parental rights may be terminated if clear and convincing evidence shows: (1) the child has been left in the care of another; (2) without provision for support; and (3) without communication from the absent parent for at least one year. The Court stated that in the context of a divorce and custody order, the child has not been “left in the care of another”. The Court stated that given the fundamental nature of parental rights, § 14-2-309 was not intended as a mechanism to enable a parent who has custody of a child pursuant to a divorce decree to bring about the termination of the non-custodial parent’s parental rights. Because SLB cannot show the child was left in the care of another, it was not necessary for the Court to consider whether provision was made for support of the child.

J. Kite delivered the opinion for the Court.

Affirmed.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/r7rd7.