Summary 2007 WY 196

Summary of Decision issued December 12, 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: K.H. v. Wyoming Dep’t of Family Services

Citation: 2007 WY 196

Docket Number: C-07-2

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

Representing Appellant (Respondent): Matthew F.G. Castano, Brown & Hiser, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Petitioner): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney Genera; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan S. Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stacey L. Obrecht, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Obrecht.

Guardian Ad Litem: Eric Eugene Jones, Wheatland, Wyoming.

Issue: Whether the district court erred by terminating the parental rights of Mother when the Department of Family Services (DFS) had failed to comply with its own written policy of attempting to place children with relatives prior to placing them in non-relative foster care.

Facts/Discussion: Mother appeals the district court’s decision terminating her parental rights.
Mother claimed that DFS should have placed her children with Grandmother because DFS’s Family Services Manual encourages its employees to place children with family members rather than in foster homes. DFS had initiated home evaluations for each of the relatives that Mother had submitted. DFS was justified in declining to place the children with Grandmother considering the risk to their well-being as revealed by the home evaluations.
Mother relied on MB v. Dep’t of Fam. Svcs. The Court noted that MB was factually distinguishable from the instant case. Mother did not dispute that she knew her case plan and that DFS notified her of the goals she would have to meet to achieve family reunification.

Holding: The Court reviewed the record and determined that even if they had evaluated DFS’s placement actions, they would not have concluded that DFS violated its rules. The children had been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months and accordingly, DFS was empowered by statute to commence termination proceedings.
In light of the Court’s resolution of Mother’s substantive claim, they did not address her ineffectiveness of counsel issue.

Affirmed.

J. Burke delivered the opinion.

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