In Re Drs, 2011 WY 128

This WY Supreme Court case involves RH (Mother) challenging a DFS-ordered placement of her three minor children with their paternal grandparents (NL and KL) and with their father (DS).
The three children, DS (9), NL (6), KL (5), were removed from Mother's home on October 24, 2008 for safety and sanitation concerns; a neglect petition followed on October 28, 2008 and the children were returned to Mother that day.
On January 16, 2009, the juvenile court entered a consent decree admitting neglect and placed the children with Mother under DFS protective supervision, creating a multidisciplinary team (MDT) and a 12-month plan with conditions.
In 2009–2010, concerns persisted about Mother's compliance and co-parenting with CL, resulting in a May–June 2009 reinstatement of proceedings and a later 2010 MDT recommendation for extended grandparent visitation and DS’s extended visitation with her father.
On July 16, 2010, DFS filed a motion to change custody and placement; a July 16, 2010 review hearing approved continued placement with maternal adjustments and set the matter for an evidentiary hearing.
A two-day evidentiary hearing occurred September 29–30, 2010; the juvenile court ordered NL and KL to remain with their grandparents and DS with her father, pending further proceedings, which the mother appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process for placement order without notice/hearing	Mother argues the July 16, 2010 order violated due process by excluding evidence and notice prior to ruling.	State contends the order was appealable and the hearing provided an adequate opportunity to be heard.	No reversible error; adequate notice/opportunity and temporary nature supported the ruling.
Which statute governs the placement decision	Mother asserts §14-3-405 (emergency custody) governs removal.	State argues §14-3-429(a)(iv) (disposition after neglect finding) governs the determination.	Court applied §14-3-429(a)(iv); correct framework for post-adjudication disposition.
Sufficiency of evidence for out-of-home placement	Mother claims insufficient clear and convincing evidence of need and of DFS's reasonable efforts.	State contends there was adequate evidence of both reasonable DFS efforts and the children's best interests to be placed outside the home.	Yes; 72 findings supported by a two-day evidentiary hearing; placement affirmed.

In re HP, 2004 WY 82 (Wyoming 2004) (negligence-proceeding standards; review at neglect hearing)
In re H Children, 2003 WY 155 (Wyoming 2003) (informal but orderly review; standards for neglect proceedings)
KO v. LDH (In re MEO), 2006 WY 87 (Wyoming 2006) (constitutional preeminence of children's best interests after neglect finding)
In re MN, 2007 WY 189 (Wyoming 2007) (principles for appellate review in custody/placement matters)
Hall v. Hall, 708 P.2d 416 (Wyoming 1985) (parental rights vs. children's best interests; due process considerations)
MP v. State in Interest of CP, 965 P.2d 1155 (Wyoming 1998) (statutory interpretation and care for dependent children)