In re Dsb

• Decision Date: 08 February 2008
• Docket Number: No. S-07-0097.,S-07-0097.
• Citation: 2008 WY 15,176 P.3d 633
• Parties: In the Interest of DSB, minor child. JA, Appellant (Respondent), v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, Appellee (Petitioner).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

176 P.3d 633

2008 WY 15

In the Interest of DSB, minor child.

JA, Appellant (Respondent), v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, Appellee (Petitioner).

No. S-07-0097.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

February 8, 2008.

Representing Appellant: Orintha E. Karns of Brown, Drew & Massey, LLP, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Ellen Rutledge, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Stacey L. Obrecht, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Rutledge.

Guardian Ad Litem: Mary Ann Budenske, Poverty Law Center of Wyoming, Inc., Casper, Wyoming.

Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

KITE, Justice.

[¶ 1] JA (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's ruling that she neglected her minor son, DSB (the child). She claims the juvenile court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the neglect action instituted by the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (DFS) because the adjudicatory hearing was not held within 90 days after the original petition was filed.

[¶ 2] We conclude the juvenile court did not lose jurisdiction to consider the neglect action under the circumstances of this case and affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 3] Mother presents the following issues for review:

A. Does a violation of the statutorily mandated ninety (90) day time limit within which a juvenile court must hold an adjudicatory hearing result in a loss of subject matter jurisdiction?

B. In the alternative, what is the appropriate remedy for a violation of the statutorily mandated ninety (90) day time limit within which a juvenile court must hold an adjudicatory hearing?

DFS phrases the issues as:

I. Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal due to appellant's failure to file a notice of appeal in Juvenile Action No. 9903.

II. Whether subject matter jurisdiction, after being acquired, is lost from failure to adhere to the statutory procedural requirements.

III. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in dismissing the first action without prejudice?

The guardian ad litem also presented a brief on appeal but did not identify any additional or different issues.

FACTS

[¶ 4] The underlying facts of this case generally are not important to the resolution of this appeal. We will, therefore, only relate those aspects of the facts and course of proceedings that are pertinent to the issues presented.

[¶ 5] On October 16, 2006, the child was placed in protective custody because Mother left him with an elderly gentleman who suffered from dementia and Alzheimer's disease. DFS filed a petition on October 18, 2006, alleging that Mother had neglected the child. At the shelter care hearing held that same day, the juvenile court gave DFS legal and physical custody of the child. The court scheduled the initial hearing for November 3, 2006, at which time Mother was to admit or deny the allegations of the neglect petition. She did not appear at that hearing.

[¶ 6] Mother finally appeared for her initial hearing on November 27, 2006, and formally denied the allegations of the neglect petition. The juvenile court scheduled the adjudicatory hearing for January 31, 2007— 105 days after the petition was filed. Two days before the adjudicatory hearing, Mother filed a motion to dismiss the case. She argued that the juvenile court had lost subject matter jurisdiction over the neglect action under the relevant Wyoming statutes because more than 90 days had passed since the petition was filed and the neglect action should be dismissed with prejudice.

[¶ 7] The juvenile court held a hearing on Mother's motion to dismiss at the time scheduled for the adjudicatory hearing. After reviewing the statutory language and the course of proceedings in the case, the juvenile court concluded that dismissal of the petition was appropriate. It ruled, however, that the dismissal would be without prejudice and allowed DFS to re-file the case. DFS did so immediately, and a combined initial and adjudicatory hearing was held later that day.

[¶ 8] After the combined hearing, the juvenile court found that the child had been neglected by Mother. Mother filed a notice of appeal in the second case, appealing from the juvenile court's order after the initial and adjudicatory hearing. Although she attached the order dismissing the first case without prejudice as an appendix to her notice of appeal, she did not expressly state that she was appealing that order.

DISCUSSION

1. Appellate Jurisdiction

[¶ 9] Initially, we must consider DFS's claim that we do not have jurisdiction over the questions presented here because Mother did not appeal from the order dismissing the first case without prejudice. This issue implicates the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue of law that may be raised at any time by any party or by the court on its own motion. Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Campbell County, 2006 WY 44, ¶ 36, 132 P.3d 801, 813 (Wyo.2006); Wooster v. Carbon County School Dist. No. 1, 2005 WY 47, 1133, 109 P.3d 893, 902 (Wyo.2005).

[¶ 10] In general, jurisdiction is "the power to hear and determine the matter in controversy between the parties." McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278, 1290 (Wyo.1980). It is "conferred when a court has general power over matters of the type involved in the particular case; the proceeding is initiated in the particular manner required; and there is notice to the parties." DB v. State of Wyo., Dep't of Family Servs. (In re MFB), 860 P.2d 1140, 1146 (Wyo. 1993); McGuire, 608 P.2d at 1290. Subject matter jurisdiction, specifically, is "the power to hear and determine cases of the general class of which the proceeding belongs." DF v. MLM (In re MICM), 792 P.2d 1369, 1373 (Wyo.1990). Subject matter jurisdiction either exists or it does not, and "before proceeding to a disposition on the merits, a court should be satisfied it does have the requisite jurisdiction." Id. With regard to appellate jurisdiction, W.R.A.P. 1.03 states in relevant part: "The timely filing of a notice of appeal, which complies with Rule 2.07(a), is jurisdictional." W.R.A.P. 2.07(a) requires that the appellant identify in the notice of appeal the judgment or appealable order appealed.

[¶ 11] As indicated above, Mother only appealed from the order following the combined initial and adjudicatory hearing in the second case. Although she attached the order dismissing the first case to her notice of appeal, she did not indicate that she was appealing from that order. DFS claims that Mother failed to comply with W.R.A.P. 1.03 because she did not appeal from the order dismissing the first case and her "entire argument" relates to that case as opposed to the second case. We disagree.

[¶ 12] As explained in more detail below, Mother claims that the juvenile court lost subject matter jurisdiction over the entire neglect action because it failed to hold a hearing within 90 days of the filing of the original petition. That argument, carried forward in the second case. The juvenile court recognized the continued viability of the subject matter jurisdiction issue in the second case and stated:

Any objections at this time [to] proceeding forward to adjudication, understanding, Counsel, that the prior objection and request for the matter to be dismissed with prejudice would remain of record[?] And, obviously, I understand you're not waiving that objection that you made in that previous case and would allow that argument to be incorporated by reference here for purposes of the dismissal that it should have been with prejudice in [the first action].

[¶ 13] We, therefore, conclude that the issue of whether the juvenile court had subject matter jurisdiction over the neglect action was effectively joined in the second case and this Court has jurisdiction to consider the issue despite the fact that Mother did not file a notice of appeal of the order dismissing the first case without prejudice.

2. Juvenile Court's Jurisdiction Over Neglect Action

[¶ 14] The Wyoming constitution and statutes grant the juvenile courts subject matter jurisdiction over neglect matters. Wyo. Const. art. 5, § 29 authorizes the legislature to create juvenile courts as needed and provides that "[s]uch courts shall have such jurisdiction as the legislature may by law provide." Pursuant to the Child Protection Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-3-401 through 14-3-440 (LexisNexis 2007), the juvenile courts have jurisdiction over neglect proceedings. Thus, the juvenile court had "the power to hear and determine the general class of cases in which this proceeding belonged." DB, 860 P.2d at 1147. See also, JW v. State ex rel. Laramie County Dep't of Public Assist. & Social Servs. (In re WM), 778 P.2d 1106, 1111 (Wyo.1989); DF, 792 P.2d at 1373. The question in this case is whether the juvenile court lost subject matter jurisdiction over the entire neglect action when it failed to comply with the procedural requirements set forth in the statutes.

[¶ 15] Section 14-3-426 articulates the procedural requirements for initial appearances on child neglect petitions. That section states in relevant part:

(a) At their initial hearing, which may be held after a shelter care hearing or a transfer hearing, the child and his parents, guardian or custodian shall be advised by the court of their rights under law and as provided in this act. They shall also be advised of the specific allegations in the petition and given an opportunity to admit or deny them. . . .

(b) If the allegations of the petition are denied, the court may, with consent of the parties, proceed immediately to hear evidence on the petition or it may set a later time not to exceed sixty (60) days for an adjudicatory hearing, unless the court finds good cause to delay or postpone the hearing. In no case shall the court hold the adjudicatory hearing more...