TR v. Washakie County Dept. of Public Assistance and Social Services
| Decision Date | 27 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. C-86-1,C-86-1 |
| Citation | 736 P.2d 712 |
| Parties | TR, Appellant (Defendant), v. WASHAKIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
H. Richard Hopkinson and Charles K. Moss, Worland, for appellant.
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Peter J. Mulvaney, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Dixon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Jeffrey A. Donnell, Worland, for appellee/guardian ad litem.
Before BROWN, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, URBIGKIT and MACY, JJ.
The foremost issue in this sad case is whether the record encompasses sufficient evidence to justify the termination of a young mother's parental rights with respect to her three daughters. The mother also contends that the trial court erred in failing to invoke a less intrusive or restrictive alternative to the termination of her parental rights, and she attacks the court's instruction in which the contentions and theories of the parties were articulated. In addition, she asserts unconstitutional vagueness with respect to material provisions of the statutes which authorize the termination of parental rights and argues the statutory scheme is unconstitutional because it fails to incorporate standards for determining when a petition to terminate parental rights should be filed. We conclude, as did the trial court, that the evidence is ample to sustain the findings of the jury in its special verdict. We hold that the trial court did not err by refusing to invoke a less intrusive or restrictive alternative to termination of parental rights and that the challenged instruction was appropriate. Valid principles of appellate jurisprudence foreclose us from addressing the claims of unconstitutionality submitted by the appellant. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
After almost six years of efforts to adjust the parenting practices of this young mother and relieve the deplorable conditions in which her three daughters were being raised, the Washakie County Department of Public Assistance and Social Services (DPASS) filed a petition in district court for the termination of the parental rights of the mother. The petition invoked the provisions of § 14-2-309(a)(iii), W.S.1977, and alleged that each of the children had been neglected or abused by the mother, the efforts of DPASS to rehabilitate the family had been unsuccessful, and the children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized if they remained with or were returned to the mother.
The district court appointed counsel to represent the mother who has prosecuted these proceedings as a poor person without funds to secure representation of her rights, and the several children were represented separately by a guardian ad litem in accordance with § 14-3-211, W.S.1977. In due course, the case came on for a jury trial which was requested by the mother, and the jury returned a special verdict finding against the mother with respect to each of the daughters. The district court entered its order terminating the mother's parental rights. The mother then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial, both of which were denied by the district court. The mother appeals from the order terminating her parental rights and also the order denying her motion for a directed verdict and her motion for a new trial.
By her Brief of Appellant, the mother submits the following issues in this appeal:
The guardian ad litem filed a Brief of Appellee and accepted the issues as stated by the mother. DPASS set forth the issues in this way in its Brief of Appellee:
The several special verdicts submitted to the jury track the requirements of the statutes as they have been interpreted by this court. Each of those forms read:
by her mother, (mother's name).
would be seriously jeopardized by remaining
with her mother, (mother's name).
As to each of the children, the jury checked yes in response to each of the questions on the verdict form.
The statute pursuant to which the termination of rights proceeding was initiated provides for the termination of parental rights if it is established by clear and convincing evidence that:
"The child has been abused or neglected by the parent and efforts by an authorized agency or mental health professional have been unsuccessful in rehabilitating the family or the family has refused rehabilitative treatment, and it is shown that the child's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by remaining with or returning to the parent;" Section 14-2-309(a)(iii), W.S.1977 (July 1986 Revision).
In applying this statute, we have said that three elements must be established before the termination of parental rights is justified:
"(1) [A]busive treatment or neglect by the parent; (2) unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate the family (i.e. termination of parental rights is the least intrusive means to satisfy the State's interest) and (3) the child's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by remaining with or returning to the parent." Matter of GP, Wyo., 679 P.2d 976, 1005 (1984).
Because the right of familial association is a fundamental liberty, our rule is that the application of the statutes for termination of parental rights is a subject of strict scrutiny. DS and RS v. Department of Public Assistance and Social Services, Wyo., 607 P.2d 911 (1980). See also, Matter of Parental Rights of PP, Wyo., 648 P.2d 512 (1982); State in Interest of C, Wyo., 638 P.2d 165 (1981). The strict scrutiny standard arises from the conflict between the fundamental liberty of familial association and the compelling interest of the state in protecting the welfare of children. Matter of MLM, Wyo., 682 P.2d 982 (1984); Matter of SKJ, Wyo., 673 P.2d 640 (1983); Matter of GP, supra.
Even though the application of the termination of parental rights statutes is a matter for strict scrutiny, the standard for reviewing evidence was articulated in DS and RS v. Department of Public Assistance and Social Services, supra, at 919-920 in this way:
This standard has been followed consistently in cases involving the termination of parental rights. Matter of SKJ, supra; Matter of Parental Rights of PP, supra. We must follow it in addressing the first issue raised by the mother in this appeal. The record demonstrates sufficient evidence to justify the jury's conclusion with respect to each daughter, under the clear and convincing evidence standard, that the State established each of the necessary elements to terminate the mother's parental rights under § 14-2-309(a)(iii), supra.
While there could be honest debate over the sufficiency of the evidence to establish abuse, the record is not equivocal with respect to neglect. The statutory definition for neglect is:
" * * * [A] failure or refusal by those responsible for the child's welfare to provide adequate care, maintenance, supervision, education or medical, surgical or any other care necessary for the child's well being." Section 14-3-202(a)(vii), W.S.1977, Cum.Supp.1985.
The testimony of witnesses at the trial established, in accordance with the clear and convincing standard, that the mother did not provide adequate care to these children; she failed to provide proper maintenance and supervision; she failed to provide for their education and medical needs; and generally, she failed to provide other care necessary for their well being.
There were two occasions in which police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adoption of JLP, Matter of
...is clearly impractical. See RW, 766 P.2d at 558 (Thomas, J., specially concurring); and TR v. Washakie County Department of Public Assistance and Social Services, 736 P.2d 712, 718 (Wyo.1987).9 Although appellant does not raise it as an issue, we note that it has been held that a convict ha......
-
JL, In Interest of, C-88-1
...statutes are subject to strict scrutiny. In Interest of JG, 742 P.2d 770, 773 (Wyo.1987); TR v. Washakie County Dept. of Public Assistance and Social Services, 736 P.2d 712 (Wyo.1987); Matter of Parental Rights of PP, 648 P.2d 512 (Wyo.1982). We invoke the strict scrutiny standard because o......
-
Crofts v. State ex rel. Dep't of Game & Fish
...Cty. Dep't of Family Servs. (In Interest of DG) ], 916 P.2d [991,] 997–98[ (Wyo.1996) ], and TR [v. Washakie Cty. Dep't of Pub. Assistance & Soc. Servs. ], 736 P.2d [712,] 719–20[ (Wyo.1987) ], we refused to address issues concerning the constitutionality of the parental rights termination ......
-
Nulle v. Gillette-Campbell County Joint Powers Fire Bd.
...DS v. Department of Public Assistance and Social Services, 607 P.2d 911, 918 (Wyo.1980). Accord, TR v. Washakie County Department of Public Assistance, 736 P.2d 712, 715 (Wyo.1987); Matter of MLM, 682 P.2d 982, 990 (Wyo.1984); Matter of GP, 679 P.2d 976, 981-82 The United States Supreme Cou......