Summary of Decision September 14, 2011
[SPECIAL NOTE:
This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation
when it is issued. You should use this
citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the
opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation
to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph
number. The pinpoint citation in the
P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance
in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the
Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we
will provide any needed assistance]
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and
are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court
Case Name:
RH v. Wyo. Dep’t of Family Servs.
Citation:
2011 WY 128
Docket Number: S-11-0017
Appeal from the District Court of Albany
County, The Honorable Jeffrey A. Donnell, Judge
Representing
Appellant (Respondent): John M. Burman,
Faculty Supervisor, U.W. Legal Services Program; Tracy Racicot, Student
Director; and Liz Minnerop, Student Intern.
Argument by Ms. Minnerop.
Representing Appellee
(Petitioner): Gregory A. Phillips,
Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill
E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Susan K. Stipe, Senior
Assistant Attorney General. Argument by
Ms. Stipe.
Date of
Decision: September 14, 2011
Facts: Mother
had three minor children, ages 9, 6 and 5, who were the subject of a neglect
petition that began this case. The three
minor children were removed from their home and Mother’s care after authorities
observed a number of safety and sanitation concerns in Mother’s home while executing
a search warrant. After the county attorney’s
office filed a neglect petition and some identified issues were corrected, the
children were returned to their home. Based upon the agreement of all parties
to the matter, the juvenile court initially entered an order accepting Mother’s
admission of neglect, but holding the adjudication of neglect in abeyance
pursuant to the terms of a consent decree which placed the children in the
custody of Mother, under the protective supervision of the Department of Family
Services (DFS). A multidisciplinary team
(MDT) was also established in order to provide recommendations to the juvenile
court.
Subsequently, the juvenile court found that
Mother violated the terms of the consent decree. Juvenile proceedings were reinstated, and the
children were adjudicated to be neglected after the admission of the neglect
was entered. Mother retained custody of
her children throughout the proceedings while under the protective supervision
of DFS. The order reinstating the proceedings
authorized DFS to remove the children from Mother’s custody without a
subsequent order from the juvenile court.
The court set forth a permanency plan of family preservation and ordered
Mother to comply with eighteen terms and conditions to reach that goal, while the
children continued to live with Mother.
Issues continued to prevail, however,
concerning Mother’s compliance with the orders of the juvenile court and
concerning the welfare of the children. Based
upon these concerns, the parties met with the children’s therapist, and all
agreed that it was in the best interests of the children for two of the children
to have extended visitation with their grandparents, and for the other child to
continue her summer visitation with her father.
The MDT met and decided to recommend that the two
children continue with their grandparent visitation, and the other child be
temporarily placed with her father.
Pursuant to that recommendation, the State filed a motion to change
custody and placement of the minor children, and requested that the existing visitation
arrangements be continued. On the same
day, the juvenile court held an already scheduled review hearing on the matter,
and after hearing recommendations from the MDT members, found it was in the best
interests of the children to be continued to be placed away from Mother until
the hearing on the State’s motion to change custody.
The juvenile court held a two-day hearing on
the State’s motion to change custody. After
hearing from both sides, and after both sides were presented an opportunity to
present evidence to the juvenile court, it ruled that the minor children should
not be returned to Mother at that time, and that they should remain with their
grandparents and father, respectively.
Mother timely appealed.
Issues:
1) Whether the district court committed reversible error when it
ordered, without notice to Mother and without conducting any evidentiary
hearing, that the two children remain with their grandparents and not be
reunited with Mother as had been stipulated; and the other child be placed with
her father without Mother’s consent; 2) Whether the district court erred by
applying Wyoming Statute § 14-3-429(a)(iv) or stated inversely, whether the
district court erred by failing to apply Wyoming Statute § 14-3-405 in deciding
the State’s motion to change custody and placement of the minor children after
conducting an evidentiary hearing; and 3) Whether the district court’s findings
of fact were supported in relevant part by “clear and convincing evidence” as
required by Wyoming Statute § 14-3-429(a)(iv).
Holdings: The Court affirmed the juvenile court. Mother’s basic complaint is that her children
were removed from her home without an evidentiary hearing. As to the first issue, the Court found no
abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s order temporarily maintaining the
placement of the children with their grandparents and father,
respectively.
As to the second
issue, the Court found that the juvenile court’s conclusions of law were decided
under the correct statute. The juvenile
court reasoned in its decision that the plain language of § 14-3-429(a)(iv)
provides that it is to be used after an adjudication of neglect; that this
statute incorporates the best interests of the child which are now of
“constitutional preeminence.” The
alternative statute proposed by Mother, § 14-3-405(c), demonstrates through its
plain language that it applies to emergency situations; and the relief provided
in § 14-3-405(c) includes ex parte relief, an emergency order, or a search warrant,
none of which was alleged as necessary in light of the two-day evidentiary
hearing held in this case.
As to the final
issue, the Court noted that the juvenile court held a two-day evidentiary
hearing where, after hearing numerous witnesses testify, it issued detailed
findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Mother’s arguments were not only heard but she was also given the
opportunity to dispute the State’s evidence.
The juvenile court made 72 findings of fact to support its conclusions
that both elements of § 14-3-429(a)(iv) were met. The Court examined the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State and upheld the juvenile
court’s findings that the statutory requirements for out of home placement were
met.
The Court upheld the
juvenile court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and order directing
Mother’s minor children to be placed with their grandparents and father,
respectively, rather than returned to her custody.
J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.
