Anastos v. State, Department of Family Services, 408 P.3d 791

AA was born January 2014; taken into protective custody February 11–13, 2015 and placed in DFS foster care. DFS later sought termination of parental rights for both parents.
Kenneth Anastos (Appellant) signed an affidavit of paternity shortly after AA’s birth, but AA never lived with him; longest contact was three days. He is AA’s legal father.
Appellant has an extensive criminal history and repeated parole revocations for methamphetamine use. He stipulated he had been incarcerated for a felony at trial and was largely incarcerated or in mandated treatment for years prior to trial.
DFS required a case plan (drug testing, housing, employment, evaluations) and three clean urinalyses before visitation; Appellant failed to complete case-plan requirements, tested positive once, left treatment early, and had no visitation with AA after she entered custody.
A jury found by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds for termination were met (under Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(i), (iv), (v), (vi)); the district court entered an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights. Appellant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DFS)	Defendant's Argument (Anastos)	Held
Whether sufficient evidence supported termination under statutory grounds	Evidence (incarceration, long criminal history, substance abuse, lack of contact, inability to meet child’s needs) established unfitness and statutory grounds	DFS failed to prove present unfitness; incarceration alone insufficient; past history not determinative	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §14-2-309(a)(iv) (parent incarcerated and unfit)
Whether district court erred denying judgment as a matter of law (W.R.C.P. 50)	DFS: even if a DFS rule was missed, the procedural lapse was harmless and did not violate fundamental rights or affect outcome	Appellant: DFS violated its own Rule (Chapter 2 §7(f)) by late case-plan completion, requiring dismissal	Affirmed: Rule violation (late case plan) shown but was minimal/harmless; Appellant did not show denial of due process or that outcome would differ

RGS v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re KGS), 386 P.3d 1144 (Wyo.) (articulates strict scrutiny and clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
In re HLL, 372 P.3d 185 (Wyo.) (discusses clear-and-convincing proof requirement in parental termination cases)
AJJ v. State (In re KMJ), 242 P.3d 968 (Wyo.) (fitness is determined by present ability to meet child’s needs; past behavior is relevant)
MB v. Laramie County Dep’t of Family Servs., 933 P.2d 1126 (Wyo.) (agency rule violations can violate parental rights when numerous/egregious)
In re Adoption of JLP, 774 P.2d 624 (Wyo.) (incarceration alone insufficient to establish parental unfitness)