Summary 2007 WY 92

Summary of Decision issued June 5, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

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

Case Name: In the Interest of L.L., A.L., M.L. and N.C.:M.L. v. Laramie County Dep’t of Family Services

Citation: 2007 WY 92

Docket Number: C-06-8

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): John M. Burman, Faculty Supervisor and Tina Popova, Student Director, UW Legal Services Program; and Scott A. Homar, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Popova. (Order granting Motion allowing Scott A. Homar to withdraw as counsel entered Nov. 16, 2006.)

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan S. Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Kucera.

Issue: Whether the district court erred when it permitted the GAL from previous neglect cases involving Mother and her children to testify at the termination of parental rights hearing, wherein the witness was not appointed as a GAL. Whether clear and convincing evidence existed to justify terminating Mother’s parental rights.

Facts/Discussion: The district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to four of her children after a two-day hearing. Mother now appeals the district court’s ruling.
Standard of Review: Decisions concerning the admissibility of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Due to the tension between the fundamental liberty of familial association and the compelling state interest in protecting the welfare of children, application of statutes for termination of parental rights is a matter for strict scrutiny.
Whether the district court erred when it allowed Mr. Frentheway to testify: Mother argued that Mr. Frentheway acted as a GAL in the case because of his status as GAL in previous proceedings, even though the district court did not appoint him. He was not appointed as a GAL in the termination proceeding and his role was that of a witness therefore he had no responsibility to the court, the children, or Mother greater than that of any other factual witness at a trial. The Court found there was no per se error in allowing Mr. Frentheway to testify.
The Court then considered whether the district court erroneously allowed Mr. Frentheway to testify regarding inadmissible opinion evidence. The Court reiterated that lay witnesses may give opinion evidence regarding matters that are rationally based on their perceptions and helpful to the trier of fact. The Court reviewed the record and was satisfied that the testimony conveyed his opinion that visits with Mother were causing problems for the children in adjusting their lives when she was not around.
Mother’s argument of unfair prejudice as a result from such testimony did not stand because the Court found no error in allowing Mr. Frentheway to testify as a lay witness.
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the district court’s decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights: Two elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v) in order to divest parents of their rights to their children. First it must be shown that the children had been under the responsibility of the state for 15 out of the most recent 22 months. It was undisputed that all the children had been in foster care for 15 out of the most recent 22 months. The Court reviewed the record and determined that the evidence proving whether Mother was unfit was clear and convincing.

Holding: The district court did not err in allowing Mr. Frentheway to testify in the instant case and clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of Mother’s parental rights to LL, ML, AL, and NC.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2s5f3t .