429 P.3d 14
Wyo.2018Background
- Child born 2006; Mother neglected child leading to DFS custody in 2016; Child placed with maternal aunt and uncle in May 2017 and was thriving.
- Father was incarcerated most of Child’s life, released on parole shortly before the November 2017 permanency hearing, and had never met the Child; minimal contact consisted of letters/pictures.
- DFS pursued reunification primarily with Mother; MDT considered paternal relatives but found placement concerns (language, distance, capability).
- Father was permitted to appear by telephone at the permanency hearing but did not answer when the court called; his attorney was present and did not object when the court proceeded by offer of proof and judicial notice.
- Juvenile court changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, relieved DFS of further reunification efforts, and found reasonable efforts had been made over ~20 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proceeding without Father’s presence, taking judicial notice of the file, and accepting offers of proof violated Father’s due process/right to an evidentiary permanency hearing | Father: Court violated due process by holding permanency hearing without him, relying on judicial notice and proffers rather than sworn testimony | State/GAL: Father had notice and opportunity; he failed to appear; his attorney did not object; non-evidentiary presentation (proffer, records) is permissible | Court: No plain error. Father had notice/opportunity, was declared in default after failing to answer; non-evidentiary procedure was acceptable under circumstances; no material prejudice shown |
| Whether DFS was required to make reasonable reunification efforts with Father after his release | Father: DFS must make efforts to reunify child with Father after his release and to develop a case plan with him | State/GAL: DFS’ statutory duty was to pursue the permanency goal (reunification with Mother) and reasonable efforts focused on existing family unit; DFS sought paternal placements earlier | Court: No abuse of discretion. DFS made reasonable efforts toward the existing reunification plan; there was no preexisting parent–child unit to ‘reunify’ with Father, and Father’s late/limited contact undercuts prejudice |
| Whether offers of proof and judicial notice were improper substitutes for live testimony at a requested evidentiary hearing | Father: Proffers and judicial notice bypass protections of an evidentiary hearing | State/GAL: Offers of proof are acceptable in non-evidentiary settings; records and hearsay are admissible in permanency hearings | Court: Procedure was permissible here. Parent requested evidentiary hearing but then failed to appear; counsel acquiesced; offers/proffers and records were appropriate in non-evidentiary context |
| Whether changing permanency plan to adoption was in Child’s best interests | Father: Change premature; Father should be allowed to attempt reunification | State/GAL: Child’s stability and established bonding with aunt/uncle warrant adoption; Father had no bond or stable plan | Court: Change to adoption affirmed—Child’s need for permanence and lack of father–child bond warranted termination of reunification efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- KC v. State, 351 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2015) (parents entitled to meaningful participation and evidentiary hearing when permanency plan change will lead to termination of parental rights)
- FH v. State, 423 P.3d 295 (Wyo. 2018) (telephone participation can satisfy presence requirement under certain circumstances)
- ST v. State (In the Interest of DT), 391 P.3d 1136 (Wyo. 2017) (standard of review for due process claims; plain error framework)
- TW v. State (In the Interest of JW), 411 P.3d 422 (Wyo. 2018) (review of reasonable efforts to reunify and abuse of discretion standard)
- SLJ v. State (In the Interest of SJJ), 104 P.3d 74 (Wyo. 2005) (use of juvenile court records in related proceedings appropriate)
- CP v. State (In re NDP), 208 P.3d 614 (Wyo. 2009) (timely permanency and prioritizing permanence over extended reunification efforts)