FH v. State (In re Interest of ECH), 423 P.3d 295

Child ECH placed in DFS custody after parents arrested for methamphetamine-related offenses; initial neglect petition focused on Mother; Father was later added as acknowledged father but not alleged to have abused or neglected the child.
Father was present at adjudication and told he was not accused but the court did not appoint or advise him of right to counsel at that appearance; later he tested positive for methamphetamine and was incarcerated.
MDT and court proceedings intermittently addressed visitation, kinship placement with grandmother, and case planning; grandmother expressed hesitancy to assume permanent custody.
Father requested counsel by letter (Feb 28, 2017) and filed a formal motion and affidavit of indigency in May 2017; counsel was appointed May 26, 2017, shortly before the permanency hearing.
Father sought transport from Wyoming Honor Farm to attend the permanency hearing in person; the court denied transport but allowed telephone participation; the court changed permanency plan from reunification to adoption and ordered reunification efforts to cease.
Father appealed, arguing the court failed to advise/appoint counsel timely and improperly denied transport; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the permanency order.

Issue	Father’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Failure to advise right to counsel / delayed appointment of counsel	Court failed to advise Father of right to counsel at first appearance and ignored his Feb 2017 request; statutory and constitutional rights implicated	Advisement/appointment applies only to parents accused of abuse/neglect; any procedural defect was harmless because counsel was appointed before the permanency hearing	Statute requires advisement and appointment for all parents; court erred but Father failed to show material prejudice, so no plain error reversal
Denial of transport to attend permanency hearing in person	Transport denial violated statutory mandate to secure parents’ presence and denied due process to appear physically	"Presence" can be satisfied by telephone; Father participated by phone with counsel in courtroom, so due process and statute satisfied	Telephone appearance with counsel present afforded meaningful participation; no due process violation; transport denial affirmed

KC v. State, 351 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2015) (permanency-change hearings affect parental rights and process must be meaningful)
In re AGS, 337 P.3d 470 (Wyo. 2014) (placement with relatives can still constitute foster care when state has legal custody)
In re MN, 171 P.3d 1077 (Wyo. 2007) (use of "shall" in statute is mandatory)
Wilson v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Cty. of Teton, 153 P.3d 917 (Wyo. 2007) (avoid addressing constitutional issues when case resolved on statutory grounds)
Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (termination proceedings are civil; counsel analysis varies with context)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (due process is flexible and fact-specific)
In re C.G., 885 P.2d 355 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994) (distinguishing presence requirements in juvenile/civil proceedings)
State of N.M. ex rel. Children v. Maria C., 94 P.3d 796 (N.M. Ct. App.) (meaningful opportunity to be heard includes counsel, confrontation, and presentation of evidence)
Schreibvogel v. State, 228 P.3d 874 (Wyo. 2010) (material prejudice standard for plain error review)
Mersereau v. State, 286 P.3d 97 (Wyo. 2012) (review of prejudice by examining entire record)