DMM v. State, 276 P.3d 392

Appellant DMM challenges district court order terminating her parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v).
DFS petition alleged abuse/neglect, reasonable reunification efforts, and that health and safety would be jeopardized if returned to mother.
Children were in DFS protective custody since Oct 7, 2009; legal custody remained with DFS; relatives served as foster caregivers.
Mother failed to timely answer; default entered; district court set a default hearing for Apr 27, 2011.
Mother later appeared via counsel, filed an answer, and moved to set aside the default; the court denied relief and terminated rights based on clear and convincing evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record contains clear and convincing evidence to terminate under § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and/or (a)(v).	DMM contends evidence is insufficient to support termination under either ground.	DFS contends the default posture does not bar review and the evidence is sufficient.	Sufficient evidence supports termination under § 14-2-309(a)(v); no need to reach (iii).
Whether a defaulting parent may challenge sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.	Appellant maintains she may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence despite default.	DFS argues default precludes meaningful appeal on sufficiency.	A defaulting parent who appeared at the termination hearing may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.

In re L.A., 215 P.3d 266 (Wy. 2009) (strict scrutiny and clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
AJJ v. State (In re KMJ), 242 P.3d 968 (Wy. 2010) (fitness and parental rights determined in context of case-specific factors)
In re A.D., 151 P.3d 1102 (Wy. 2007) (special considerations in termination proceedings)
In the Interest of L.L., 159 P.3d 499 (Wy. 2007) (strict scrutiny and heightened protections in termination)
Rosty v. Skaj, 272 P.3d 947 (Wy. 2012) (defaulting party may challenge damages evidence in civil actions)