JR v. State (In re MA)
| Decision Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-0151 |
| Citation | 2022 WY 29 |
| Parties | IN THE INTEREST OF: MA, KA and GA, minor children, v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Petitioner). JR, Appellant (Respondent), |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Appeal from the District Court of Weston County The Honorable John R. Perry, Judge
Representing Appellant: DaNece Day of Day Law, LLC Gillette Wyoming.
Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Misha Westby, Deputy Attorney General; Allison E Connell, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Connell.
Guardian ad Litem: Joseph R. Belcher, Director; Kim Skoutary Johnson, Wyoming Office of the Guardian ad Litem Program, a division of the Office of the State Public Defender. Appearance by Ms. Tamara Candelaria.
Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS [*] , KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
[¶1] JR (Mother), who lives out of state and has not been adjudicated abusive or neglectful, appeals the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan for her and her three children from family reunification to termination of parental rights and adoption. Mother asserts the court abused its discretion when it determined the Wyoming Department of Family Services had made reasonable efforts to reunify her with the children. Because the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, reflects that the Department failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it made reasonable efforts, we reverse the court's order changing the permanency plan and remand with instructions to the court.
[¶2] The issue is:[1]
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion when it determined the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify Mother with the children?
[¶3] Mother shares three children—MA, [2] KA, and GA—with MA (Father). The family had primarily lived in Upton, Wyoming, but, due to Father's mental illness and domestic abuse, Mother and the children moved back and forth between Upton and Sturgis, South Dakota in the years leading up to these proceedings. Just prior to the proceedings Mother was living in South Dakota and the children were in Upton with Father.[3] [¶4] Mother was visiting the children at Father's home in February 2019, when Father got angry because his mother (DA) would not give him beer money. Despite frigid temperatures, Father turned off the electricity in the home, sent MA to get money from DA, and threatened to keep the electricity off until he returned. DA's friend contacted law enforcement, who investigated the report and took the children into protective custody on February 5, 2019.
[¶5] On February 7, the State filed a neglect petition against Mother and Father and the court held an initial and shelter care hearing. In addition to the events described above, the petition alleged:
[MA] was hit by [F]ather and bruised on left arm; when angry, [Father] also pours beer onto one of the [children's] bed; [the children] report feeling unsafe at home with parents; [Father's] behavior is part of a pattern related to some apparent mental-illness, which is a threat to [the children] and to himself[.]
Mother and Father each denied the neglect allegations, and Father expressed a desire to give up custody of the children to Mother. The GAL, appointed to represent the children, recommended they be placed with Father's parents "for the time being." Though Mother wanted the children to go home with her to South Dakota, she reluctantly agreed to the placement. The court expressed hesitation to let Mother take the children only because she lived out of state and it wanted "a little more information." The court placed the children in the legal custody of the Department, and in foster care with Father's parents. It also ordered that a multidisciplinary team (MDT) be appointed.
[¶6] Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-426(b), the court was required to hold an adjudicatory hearing within 60 days of the shelter care hearing, and under no circumstances more than 90 days after the filing of the petition. In early April, the State requested to go beyond the 60-day window, because the parties were "working together to try to negotiate a stipulation as to adjudication[.]" Then, on June 27, the court granted the State's request to amend the neglect petition and treat it as newly filed. The new petition incorporated the original allegations, and provided that Mother "shall no longer be a target of the [p]etition, but shall remain a party as the biological mother of the allegedly neglected children." The court then held another initial and shelter care hearing, this time on the new petition, and continued the children's placement with Father's parents.
[¶7] On September 30, the court accepted the parties' stipulated Rule 7 agreement and finally held the adjudicatory hearing.[4] As per the stipulation, the court adjudicated the children "neglected" as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(xii)(A) and § 14-3-202(a)(vii) in that "[F]ather has failed or refused to provide adequate care necessary for [their] well-being[.]" The court ordered the Department's caseworker to provide a predisposition report. Its order also stated, in relevant part, that Mother and Father shall: cooperate with the Department and the GAL, comply with their case plans, maintain telephone service or the equivalent, participate in MDT meetings, have visitation with the children, obtain substance abuse evaluations, attend counseling, maintain clean and suitable homes, and submit to random searches and drug testing at the Department's request.
[¶8] The caseworker filed her predisposition report on November 25, 2019. She noted that she could not reach Mother "for purposes of completing this report." The report identified concerns about the children being neglected if Mother did not address her "stability and substance abuse issues" and recommended that Mother complete a substance abuse evaluation to determine necessary treatment.[5] It listed the permanency plan as reunification with concurrent planning for adoption or guardianship with Father's parents.
[¶9] The court held a disposition hearing on the heels of the first MDT meeting that same month. Following the hearing, the court found that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Mother, and that it was in the children's best interests to continue residing with Father's parents. The court adopted the MDT's recommendations and, in addition to the requirements imposed on Mother in its adjudication order, it further ordered Mother to complete a parenting class, show consistency with appointments and visitation, obtain a counseling needs assessment, and participate in family counseling if recommended.
[¶10] Following the initial and shelter care hearing in February the Department allowed Mother as much visitation as she could make at Father's parents' house in Upton. In September, seven months after the children had been taken into custody, the Department provided Mother a case plan with a goal of "family reunification". By late October, Mother had submitted to two random urinalysis tests, and one had come back positive for methamphetamine.
[¶11] In November, after Mother expressed to the caseworker that visits at Father's parents' house were uncomfortable given her history of abuse by Father, her visitation changed to supervised visits every Friday at noon at the Department's office in Sundance, Wyoming. Mother was required to travel to Wyoming and submit to urinalysis tests prior to these visits. As noted above, the MDT had its first meeting that same month, see supra ¶ 9, where the caseworker explained that this case was "a weird situation; the kids have been in custody since February and we need to move forward from here."
[¶12] The MDT met again in February 2020. Mother stated she was attending a parenting class, looking for a counselor, and had not yet scheduled a substance abuse evaluation. She complained to the MDT that she was not receiving any information on the children and said she wanted to know everything. The caseworker expressed concern that Mother had only made it to two Friday visits with the children since they began in November—she noted that not all of the missed visits were Mother's fault but encouraged Mother to make "it a priority to make it to visits." Mother had provided at least one more urinalysis test, which came back clean. The MDT set a deadline for Mother to complete a counseling needs assessment and a substance abuse evaluation by February 29. On February 13, the caseworker emailed Mother a list of providers in Mother's area.
[¶13] The COVID-19 pandemic arose in March. Due to restrictions on interstate travel, Mother could not have in-person visits for two or three months. During that time, Mother's visitation switched to phone calls and video chats.
[¶14] Mother completed a counseling services intake and began counseling at Behavioral Management Systems in April. Her counselor found that she had issues with anxiety, coping skills, mood instability, and domestic violence trauma. Mother was diagnosed with mild depression and PTSD. The counselor recommended that Mother participate in individual therapy. She put together an "action plan" for Mother and referred her to the Artemis House for additional support. When the COVID-19 travel restrictions were lifted sometime in May or June, the caseworker told Mother they could be flexible regarding visitation and "left the ball in [Mother's] court"—no visitation schedule in Wyoming or South Dakota was ever reestablished. Mother continued having calls with the children.
[¶15] At the June MDT meeting, the caseworker stressed that they needed to see Mother's goals met. Specifically, she said Mo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Court Summaries
...and Hassler was entitled to judgment in her favor. In the Interest of: MA, KA and GA, minor children, JR, v. State of Wyoming S-21-0151 2022 WY 29 February 28, 2022 JR (Mother) had three children with MA (Father). The family had primarily lived in Upton, but due to Father's domestic abuse, ......