Summary 2009 WY 73

Summary of Decision issued June 3, 2009

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

Case Name: In re: NDP, JAP, ANP, & ICP

Citation: 2009 WY 73

Docket Number: S-08-0210

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge.

Representing Appellant CP: Cynthia K. Sweet, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Susan K. Stipe, Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: CP (Mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s disposition order after she was found to have neglected her four children. She claimed the court erred by ruling that DFS did not need to make further efforts to reunify her with the children and ordering it to proceed with establishing a family guardianship.

Standard of Proof: Mother asserted that the juvenile court erred by failing to specifically state that it was applying the preponderance of the evidence standard in its rulings at the disposition hearing, particularly the ruling that DFS did not need to make further efforts to reunify the children with Mother. The Court noted it is well established that in neglect proceedings the State has the burden of proving the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The record clearly demonstrated the court applied the preponderance of the evidence standard. In order to obtain reversal, Mother should have shown that she was prejudiced by the violation.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: Mother challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court’s rulings that further reunification efforts were not necessary. The plain language of § 14-3-440 requires DFS to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. The statute also recognizes the children’s health and safety is paramount, timely placement of children in accordance with a permanency plan may take precedence over family reunification, and reunification efforts inconsistent with the permanency plan may be discontinued. The juvenile court’s oral and written rulings demonstrated that it considered the family’s entire situation in ordering disposition of the children. From the beginning of the case, Mother had been advised that a permanency hearing would occur within one year of the children’s placement outside the family home. She had also been repeatedly advised that a concurrent permanency plan of family guardianship was being developed and pursued. Given that at the time of the disposition hearing, none of the professionals involved in the case believed that reunification could be accomplished within a reasonable time, the juvenile court properly concluded that the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that continuation of efforts to reunite the children with Mother was inconsistent with the permanency plan of placing the children in a long-term guardianship.

Conclusion: The juvenile court’s order recognized the children’s rights and needs for stability and permanency and there was sufficient evidence to support it.

Affirmed.

J. Kite delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/o8tf5r .

[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.]