Dunlap v. State (In re Bad), 446 P.3d 222

Mother (Cathy Dunlap) has four children; three (BD, CS, AS) were removed for neglect in 2015 and remained in foster care; JE was reunified with his father.
State filed termination under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v); Mother challenged only sufficiency of evidence supporting termination.
Record showed long history of unstable, unsanitary housing and repeated child-protective involvement across multiple states; Mother failed to complete prior case plans and repeatedly relocated, at one point giving DFS a false address.
From 2015–2016 Mother participated inconsistently in services, did not sustain employment (citing disability/seizures), resisted some therapeutic recommendations, and failed to demonstrate ability to meet children’s ongoing needs.
District court found children had been in foster care more than 15 of the most recent 22 months and that Mother was unfit; court terminated parental rights.
Majority affirmed on § 14-2-309(a)(v) ground (fitness + 15/22), finding clear and convincing evidence of unfitness. Justice Fox (joined by Justice Gray) concurred specially, agreeing with the outcome but arguing the Department must also prove it made reasonable reunification efforts as part of the (a)(v) fitness inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 14-2-309(a)(v) (15/22 + parent unfit)	Dunlap: evidence was insufficient; she asserted changed circumstances and improved living in North Dakota	State: children were in foster care >15/22 and Mother’s historical and current conduct show unfitness to meet children’s needs	Affirmed: Court found clear and convincing evidence Mother was unfit and 15/22 requirement met, so termination upheld
Whether the Department must prove it made reasonable reunification efforts as part of § 14-2-309(a)(v) fitness showing	Dunlap (and concurrence argues): reasonable efforts must be shown before termination	State: majority treated reasonable-efforts proof as not required under (a)(v) in this case (relied on historical/case-plan failures)	Concurrence (Fox, joined by Gray): would require clear-and-convincing proof the Department made reasonable, tailored efforts; majority did not adopt this rule but affirmed on the existing record

SAS v. State of Wyo., Dep't of Family Servs. (In re AGS), 337 P.3d 470 (Wyo. 2014) (standard of review; 15/22 discussion)
DMM v. State of Wyo., Dep't of Family Servs. (In re ZMETS), 276 P.3d 392 (Wyo. 2012) (only one terminating ground need be sustained)
AJJ v. State of Wyo., Dep't of Family Servs. (In re KMJ), 242 P.3d 968 (Wyo. 2010) (fitness includes meeting ongoing physical, mental, emotional needs)
CL v. State of Wyo., Dep't of Family Servs. (In re AD), 151 P.3d 1102 (Wyo. 2007) (neglect shown by combination of incidents over time)
JLW v. CAB, 224 P.3d 14 (Wyo. 2010) (parental history and pattern are relevant to termination)
LeBlanc v. State Dep't of Family Servs., 401 P.3d 932 (Wyo. 2017) (lists factors relevant to parental fitness)
Matter of KCS, 433 P.3d 892 (Wyo. 2019) (discussion of 15/22 ground application)
In re FM, 163 P.3d 844 (Wyo. 2007) (reasonable-efforts requirement analysis under § 14-2-309(a)(iii))
In re HP, 93 P.3d 982 (Wyo. 2004) (examples of tailored reasonable efforts to incarcerated parent)