In re Guardianship of Meo
| Citation | 2006 WY 87,138 P.3d 1145 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. C-05-11.,C-05-11. |
| Parties | In the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP OF MEO, a minor child. KO, Appellant (Respondent), v. LDH and BJH, Appellees (Petitioners), and The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Intervenor). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
John Burman, Faculty Director, and Robert J. Percifield, Student Intern, U.W. Legal Services Program, Laramie, Wyoming, for Appellant.
Megan E. Overmann Goetz, of Pence & MacMillan, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming, for Appellees.
Warren A. Lauer and April Jamison, of Lauer Law Office, Laramie, Wyoming, Guardians Ad Litem.
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan S. Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Ellen Rutledge, Assistant Attorney General, for State of Wyoming.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL*, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] Appellant, KO, ("Mother"), challenges the appointment of Appellees, LDH and BJH, ("Grandparents"), as temporary and permanent guardians of her daughter, MEO. Mother contends the district court erred in establishing the temporary guardianship without a hearing and without proper notice to her. Mother also contends the district court erred in establishing the permanent guardianship without finding her to be an unfit parent. In the absence of a finding of parental unfitness, Mother claims that the appointment of guardians for MEO was not authorized and violated Mother's fundamental rights as a parent. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we agree with Mother that the district court erred in establishing the guardianship. Accordingly, we reverse the order appointing Grandparents as MEO's guardians.
[¶ 2] Mother presents the following issues:
I. Whether the district court entered its Order Appointing Temporary Guardians and Conservators in violation of Wyoming law.
II. Whether the guardianship statute as interpreted by the district court violates substantive and procedural due process.
III. Whether parental unfitness must be proved at a court hearing before a guardianship is granted to a non-parent.
Grandparents state the issues as:
I. Whether the Court should consider interlocutory and non-appealable matters which are now moot.
II. Whether the district court properly entered an order appointing guardians and conservators consistent with MEO's best interests and Appellant's constitutional rights.
III. Whether Wyoming Statute Annotated § 3-2-104 is constitutional.
The State, as Intervenor, identifies a single issue:
Whether the Wyoming guardianship statutes, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-1-101 through 3-2-202, violate parents' procedural or substantive due process rights?
[¶ 3] MEO is a minor, born November 15, 1988. KO ("Mother") is the only living parent of MEO.1 In 1999, MEO moved with her mother to Laramie, Wyoming from Texas. After the move, MEO maintained a close relationship with extended family in Texas and typically spent time each summer visiting with Grandparents.2
[¶ 4] During the summer of 2004, Mother and MEO traveled to Rhode Island on vacation. From there, MEO traveled to Texas to visit Grandparents. Her stay extended for the remainder of the summer. Mother remained in Rhode Island and did not intend to return to Laramie until after the school year began. Plans were made for MEO to return to Laramie to begin school and stay with an adult friend of Mother until Mother returned from Rhode Island.
[¶ 5] In early September 2004, Grandparents became concerned that MEO was in Laramie without Mother. They contacted the Laramie police and reported MEO as an abandoned child. The police contacted MEO and took her to the station. Following an investigation, the police released her to the care of Mother's adult friend.
[¶ 6] On Friday, September 10, 2004, Grandparents filed a petition to be appointed permanent guardians and conservators of MEO.3 That same day, they also filed a motion requesting to be appointed temporary guardians. No hearing was requested on the motion for temporary appointment, and no hearing was scheduled. The only pleading making any reference to a hearing was entitled "Notice of Deadline for Filing Objections," and provided:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that [LDH] and [BJH] have filed in the Second Judicial District Court in and for Albany County, State of Wyoming, a Petition praying that they be appointed temporary and permanent Guardians and Conservators of [MEO and] that Letters of Guardianship and Conservatorship be issued to them. On or after the . . . 29th day of November, 2004, at 9:00 o'clock a.m., the Court will enter an order after a hearing is heard on said Petition, in the Second Judicial District Courthouse, Laramie, Albany County, Wyoming.
A summons was not requested or issued. Counsel for Grandparents filed a certificate of service indicating the petition and notice were mailed to MEO and Mother on September 10, 2004, with a return receipt requested.
[¶ 7] During the weekend, Mother returned to Laramie and was told by a friend and MEO that Grandparents were seeking to be appointed as MEO's guardians. The next business day, Monday, September 13, 2004, Mother went to the post office and signed for her mail.4 Mother contacted the court and counsel for Grandparents in an effort to learn if a hearing was scheduled but was informed that the only hearing scheduled was set for November 29, 2004. Unbeknownst to Mother, the district court entered an order on September 13, 2004, appointing Grandparents as temporary guardians of MEO. Mother learned that the temporary guardianship had been established on September 15, 2004, when Grandparents appeared at her home to take custody of MEO.
[¶ 8] On September 24, 2004, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Mother and requested an immediate hearing. Mother also filed a motion requesting the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) for MEO. The district court entered its order appointing the GAL on September 30, 2004.
[¶ 9] On October 4, 2004, Mother filed a motion requesting an immediate hearing on the merits, or alternatively, termination of the temporary guardianship. The GAL objected to an immediate hearing, requesting additional time to complete an investigation. Grandparents filed a traverse to Mother's motion, referring to the notice filed at the time of the petition providing that a hearing on the merits would be conducted on November 29, 2004. On October 8, 2004, the district court denied Mother's motion and ordered that the temporary guardianship established on September 13, 2004, "shall remain in full force and effect pending final disposition of this matter to occur on or before November 29, 2004."
[¶10] On October 26, 2004, Mother filed several pleadings objecting to the guardianship and the procedural background to date. She filed an affidavit discussing the notice she had received, or failed to receive, and asserting the petition included false allegations against her. Additionally, she requested that the temporary guardianship be dissolved because the guardianship had been established ex parte, without a hearing, in violation of pertinent statutes and contrary to her fundamental parental rights and protections afforded to her by due process. Because of Grandparents' expressed intent to take MEO to their home in Texas prior to the scheduled hearing on November 29, 2004, Mother requested an immediate hearing on her motion or an order requiring the Grandparents to remain in Wyoming with MEO. In response, Grandparents advised the district court that they would remain in Wyoming.
[¶ 11] On November 4, 2004, the district court held a brief hearing and received limited testimony concerning the circumstances of Mother's location and her knowledge of the proceedings from September 10-15, 2004. The district court found that the temporary guardianship was not established in violation of the guardianship statutes. On November 16, 2004, the district court entered its order denying Mother's motion to dissolve the temporary guardianship.
[¶ 12] The parties stipulated to continue the November 29th hearing on the merits of the guardianship until December 2, 2004. During that hearing, Grandparents presented testimony of several witnesses, and the district court interviewed MEO in camera.5 Grandparents completed their evidentiary presentation, but time constraints prevented Mother from presenting her case. A second hearing was scheduled for December 23, 2004, when it was contemplated that Mother would present her case. Subsequent to that scheduling, on December 14, 2004, Mother appealed from the November order denying her motion to dissolve the temporary guardianship.
[¶ 13] After Mother filed her notice of appeal pertaining to the temporary guardianship, Guardians requested that the hearing scheduled for December 23, 2004, be vacated, claiming Mother's appeal deprived the district court of jurisdiction. On December 22, 2004, the district court, finding lack of jurisdiction because of the appeal, entered an order vacating the scheduled evidentiary hearing. Mother then petitioned this Court for a writ of review. We granted the petition, and on January 26, 2005, issued an order reversing the district court's order vacating the hearing.6 A hearing on the merits of the guardianship was eventually scheduled for March 30, 2005.
[¶ 14] Instead of staying in Laramie until the postponed hearing in March, the Grandparents decided to return to their home in Texas. In December 2004, Grandparents and MEO relocated to Texas where MEO enrolled in high school. On March 7, 2005, Mother filed a motion requesting that the district court establish a visitation schedule and asked for a prompt hearing on her request. The district court held a hearing on March 11, 2005, and ordered that MEO spend time during her spring break with Mother in Laramie.
[¶ 15] On March 30, 2005, the district court completed the hearing on the merits of the guardianship. At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guy v. Wyo. Dep't of Corr.
... ... The question, however, is whether the district court correctly dismissed all of Mr. Guys claims for relief. STANDARD OF REVIEW [10] We evaluate a district courts decision on a motion to dismiss de novo. Wyo. Guardianship Corp. v. Wyo. State Hosp., et al. , 2018 WY 114, 16, 428 P.3d 424, 432 (Wyo. 2018). We also apply de novo review to determine whether an issue is moot, In Interest of DJS-Y , 2017 WY 54, 6, 394 P.3d 467, 469 (Wyo. 2017), and to determine whether a state official is entitled to qualified ... ...
-
Hanft v. City of Laramie
... ... Brush v ... Davis , 2013 WY 161, 16, 315 P.3d 648, 653 (Wyo. 2013). [46] "Notice and the opportunity to be heard 'are unquestionably incidental to affording due process of law.'" NRAE , 17, 472 P.3d at 379 (quoting In re Guardianship of MEO , 2006 WY 87, 34, 138 P.3d 1145, 1156 (Wyo. 2006)). The City has not, however, met its Page 20 burden of showing that it was deprived of notice and the opportunity to be heard by the district court's summary judgment ruling. [47] Mr. Vance's memorandum in support of partial summary ... ...
-
Operation Save Am. v. City of Jackson, Mun. Corp.
... ... Because the present controversy is one of great public importance and is capable of repetition yet evading review, we conclude that OSA's appeal is not moot. [275 P.3d 448 [ 21] The doctrine of mootness considers whether a justiciable controversy remains between the parties. In re Guardianship of MEO, 2006 WY 87, 27, 138 P.3d 1145, 1153 (Wyo.2006). "A court should not hear a case where there has been a change in circumstances occurring either before or after a case has been filed that eliminates the controversy." Id. (quoting Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., ... ...
-
Ailport v. Ailport
...any doubt must be resolved in favor of constitutionality. In re Adoption of RHA, 702 P.2d 1259, 1265 (Wyo.1985). In re Guardianship of MEO, 2006 WY 87, ¶ 19, 138 P.3d 1145, 1151 (Wyo. 2006). See also, Troxel, 530 U.S. at 67, 120 S.Ct. at 2061 ("The Washington Supreme Court had the opportuni......
-
Juvenile Court, Part Iv the Public Defender's Rules and Regulations for the Guardians Ad Litem Program
...it is in the child's best interest to be with his or her parent(s), as outlined by the Wyoming Supreme Court in In re Guardianship of MEO, 2006 WY 87, 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006).(fn16) Section 8 of chapter 1 is entitled Administration." It notes that the PD's Office "[s]hall, in its discreti......
-
Ethically Speaking - Juvenile Court, Part Ii - Some of the Legal Knowledge Reasonably Necessary to Be a Competent Guardian Ad Litem
...it is in the child's best interest to be with his or her parent(s), as outlined by the Wyoming Supreme Court in In re Guardianship of MEO, 2006 WY 87, 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006). In the last couple of years, the Wyoming Supreme Court has issued two opinions in TPR cases that are directly rel......
-
Ethically Speaking
...child's best interest to be with his or her parent(s), as outlined by the Wyoming Supreme Court in In re Guardianship of MEO, 2006WY87, 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006).[11] A best interest evaluation is much different than advocating a client's objectives. Accordingly, the lawyer's role shifts su......