RR v. State (In re AM)

• Decision Date: 28 October 2021
• Docket Number: S-21-0037
• Citation: 2021 WY 119
• Parties: IN THE INTEREST OF: AM, NM and IM, minor children, v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Petitioner). RR, Appellant (Respondent),
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2021 WY 119

IN THE INTEREST OF: AM, NM and IM, minor children,

RR, Appellant (Respondent),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Petitioner).

No. S-21-0037

Supreme Court of Wyoming

October 28, 2021

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County The Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

Representing Appellant: Sarah G.R. Phillips, Bighorn Mountain Legal Services, LLC, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Phillips.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Misha Westby, Deputy Attorney General; Christina McCabe, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Allison Connell, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Connell.

Guardians ad Litem: Joseph R. Belcher, Director, and Kimberly A. Skoutary-Johnson, Chief Trial and Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Guardian ad Litem Program.

Before FOX, C.J., and DAVIS, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

1

FOX, CHIEF JUSTICE

[¶1] The Department of Family Services (DFS) recommended changing the permanency plan for minor siblings IM, NM, and AM from a concurrent plan of adoption or reunification to adoption. The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing after which it ordered the permanency plan be changed to adoption and found that DFS should be relieved of making further reasonable efforts to reunify. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Mother raises three issues which we consolidate and rephrase as follows:

I. Did the juvenile court err when it ruled that DFS could cease making reasonable efforts to reunify

II. Did the juvenile court's decision to admit DFS's Exhibit A violate Mother's due process rights?

FACTS

2

[¶3] RR (Mother) and JM (Father) are parents of three minor children, IM, NM, and AM. On March 29, 2019, law enforcement officers responded to a report of an argument between Mother and Father outside a school. When officers contacted Mother and Father, they learned that the children, then ages seven, five, and four, had been home alone at the time of the argument. The officers also discovered a pipe and small baggie which both tested presumptively positive for methamphetamine. Mother admitted to purchasing and using methamphetamine, the officers arrested Mother and Father, and took IM, NM, and AM into protective custody. Later that day, the Sheridan County Attorney's office filed a petition alleging Mother and Father had neglected the children. On April 1, 2019, the juvenile court ordered the children be placed in foster care. It also ordered both parents to address their addictions and to obtain counseling assessments to address individual and family needs. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) was appointed to "formulate reasonable and attainable recommendations for the court outlining the goals or objectives the parents should be required to meet for the child[ren] to be returned to the home or for the case to be closed." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-427(f) (LexisNexis 2021).

[¶4] Mother initially made progress on the plan-she got a job, had several clean UAs, successfully completed inpatient treatment, attended outpatient counseling and recovery classes, and progressed to unsupervised visits with the children. In the early spring of 2020, Mother's counseling and recovery meetings were cancelled and she lost her job as a server at a restaurant because of COVID-19. During a visit with the children, Mother was arrested on suspicion of theft. Mother lost her housing because of the arrest but resumed part-time employment as a server and appeared to be doing well with her

3

aftercare. Mother resumed supervised visits with the children in the summer of 2020. In August 2020, Mother was arrested on new felony charges for delivery of methamphetamine. Mother relapsed and, in September, she was arrested again for misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. DFS then learned Mother had been lying about her living situation for months. At the next MDT meeting, the majority of the team recommended the permanency plan be changed to adoption.

[¶5] At the November 5, 2020 evidentiary hearing, the DFS caseworker and the guardian ad litem argued it was in the children's best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption. The State introduced an exhibit prepared by the DFS caseworker which summarized the events of the previous nineteen months and the reasonable efforts made by DFS to reunify the family. Mother objected to the exhibit, asserting it was untimely because she only received a copy "shortly before" the hearing, and because it contained hearsay within hearsay. The juvenile court admitted the exhibit reasoning that the Rules of Evidence do not apply to juvenile proceedings of this nature and that probative, trustworthy, and credible hearsay evidence is allowed. See W.R.E. 1101(b)(3).

[¶6] The DFS caseworker opined that it was in the children's best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption. Mother's counsel asked if it would be detrimental to cease reasonable efforts pending the termination case. The DFS caseworker responded that she did not think it would be detrimental to the children and that prolonging reasonable efforts would "make things worse in the end."

[¶7] The juvenile court promptly issued its order on November 10, 2020. It found:

Throughout this case, both parents have made little to no progress. . . . Although Mother has actively participated in this case, she is still not in a position to parent these children after receiving extensive services. Both parents have failed to maintain their sobriety, stable housing, or employment. In addition, both parents have continued to engage in criminal behavior throughout this case, and they are now facing significant jail or prison time.

Though Mother requested continued reunification efforts, the court concluded that the children's right to stability and permanency outweighed Mother's right to familial association. It held that the State had proven the permanency plan was not in the children's best interest and ordered the permanency plan be changed to adoption. It ruled, "DFS should be relieved of making further reasonable efforts, including facilitating phone calls between the children and their parents." Mother appealed.

4

DISCUSSION

I. The Juvenile Court Did Not Err When It Ruled That DFS Could Cease Reasonable Efforts

[¶8] Mother does not challenge the juvenile court's order changing the permanency plan to adoption; she does object to allowing DFS to cease making reasonable efforts at reunification, which essentially means she can no longer have contact with her children. First, she asserts the juvenile court's decision is not supported by sufficient evidence; second, Mother argues that the juvenile court's decision was deficient as a matter of law because it did not make specific findings under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(b) or (c).

A. Standard of Review

[¶9] We review the juvenile court's decision to change a permanency plan for an abuse of discretion. In the Interest of AA, 2021 WY 18, ¶ 33, 479 P.3d 1252, 1261 (Wyo. 2021). "A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances." Id. (quoting MMM v. AMMJ, 2018 WY 60, ¶ 10, 419 P.3d 490, 493 (Wyo. 2018)). To the extent Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the juvenile court's decision, "we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, assuming all favorable evidence to be true while discounting conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party." In the Matter of JPL, 2021 WY 94, ¶ 21, 493 P.3d 174, 180 (Wyo. 2021) (citations omitted). Mother's assertion that the juvenile court erred as a matter of law requires us to "engage in statutory interpretation, a question of law that we review de novo." In the Interest of DT, 2017 WY 36, ¶ 23, 391 P.3d 1136, 1143 (Wyo. 2017) (citation omitted).

B. The Juvenile Court Was Not Required to Order Reasonable Efforts to Continue When It Changed the Permanency Plan to Adoption

[¶10] Mother argues that the juvenile court's decision that DFS could cease making reasonable efforts to reunify her with her children was contrary to...