FT, In Interest of, C-93-3
| Decision Date | 30 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. C-93-3,C-93-3 |
| Parties | In the Interest of FT, a Minor Child: BLT, Appellant (Respondent), v. The STATE of Wyoming; and Department of Family Services, Appellees (Petitioners). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Barbara Thorpe, appellant pro se.
Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Richard Dixon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for appellee.
Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, GOLDEN and TAYLOR, JJ.
We affirm the juvenile court's adjudication of delinquency and placement of the delinquent child on probation for a period of one year under specified terms and conditions because the pro se appellant's brief violates several of the provisions of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure and fails to identify and articulate an issue which could serve as grounds for reversal.
At a hearing on May 11, 1992, in the juvenile court of Albany County on the amended petition of the county and prosecuting attorney for Albany County, F.T., a minor, after having consulted with appointed counsel and after having been properly advised of his rights and in all other respects, admitted to the amended petition. In so doing, he admitted that he had intentionally set one fire in a vacant field near 23rd Street and Grand Avenue in Laramie, Wyoming, on or between April 10 and 11, 1992. The court ordered the preparation of the requisite predisposition study and report.
The court convened a final hearing on October 28, 1992, at which time the court, F.T., F.T.'s appointed counsel, and F.T.'s mother, B.T., reviewed the predisposition study and report and an addendum to that report. At this hearing it was evident that of paramount concern to B.T. was that F.T. have the opportunity to receive a seven-day stabilization treatment at the Denver Children's Hospital in Denver, Colorado, as soon as that could be arranged. Addressing that concern, the court informed B.T. that, in its judgment, if it ordered such stabilization treatment, the federal officials administering Title XIX would not pay for it. The court maintained that federal payment would be available if B.T., as parent, initiated the effort to secure the stabilization treatment by securing a referral from the appropriate health-care provider who had been seeing F.T. After further discussion, the court expressed its concern to B.T. that perhaps B.T. would not make a commitment to follow the after-care treatment recommendations which might be the product of the stabilization treatment. Responding to the court's concern, B.T. promised the court that she would abide by the after-care recommendations following the stabilization treatment.
At the conclusion of this final hearing, the court announced its disposition by adjudicating F.T. to be a delinquent child and placing him on one year's probation. Included in the terms and conditions of the probation was the requirement that the Department of Family Services provide limited supervision to insure compliance with the order and also participate in B.T.'s petition to Title XIX officials for stabilization for F.T. at the Denver Children's Hospital.
On November 18, 1992, B.T. and F.T., pro se, filed a notice of appeal. In relevant part, the notice of appeal reads:
The specificly [sic] designated issue for appeal is prohibition of the District Judge to order a comprehensive evaluation at the Denver Childrens' [sic] Hospital, by the Albany County Family Services, of the scope and duration needed, under Medicaid (particularly through Epsdt program) funding or any other Social Services program because the latter unjustly claim they cannot assist with payment, even under District Court order, although all technical criteria have been fulfilled to ensure authorization should be given.
Because this is erroneous, appeal is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. State, 98-264.
...it, whether filed by a litigant pro se or by counsel. Madrid v. State, 910 P.2d 1340, 1346-47 (Wyo.1996); In Interest of FT, 856 P.2d 1128, 1129-30 (1993). Moreover, Jennings points to no error, defect, irregularity, or variance which affected a substantial right of his; thus, error, if any......
-
Hamburg v. Heilbrun
...authority. E.g., Wilson v. State, 874 P.2d 215 (Wyo.1994); Haderlie v. Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703 (Wyo.1993); In Interest of FT, 856 P.2d 1128 (Wyo.1993); Amrein v. Wyoming Livestock Bd., 851 P.2d 769 (Wyo.1993); E.C. Cates Agency, Inc. v. Barbe, 764 P.2d 274 (Wyo.1988); Kipp v. Brown, 750 P.......
-
Stone v. Stone, 99-195.
...cite to the record." Baker v. Reed, 965 P.2d at 1154-55; Amen, Inc. v. Barnard, 938 P.2d 855, 858 (Wyo.1997); In Interest of FT, 856 P.2d 1128, 1129-30 (Wyo.1993). As is readily apparent, Father's statement of the issues is virtually unintelligible. We have granted Father considerable leewa......
-
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm. v. Walton
...with Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure in the same way that trained lawyers are expected to perform."In Interest of FT, 856 P.2d 1128, 1129 (Wyo. 1993) (citation & quotations omitted). Appellate Rule 1.03 permits the Court to impose sanctions, including summary affirmance, on thepro se l......