In Re Re, 2011 WY 170

DFS took protective custody of TE (born 2007) and RE (born 2009) due to neglect concerns; father was incarcerated and not at issue.
Initial petition deemed children neglected; court placed them in DFS custody with foster care and ordered visitation to facilitate reunification.
MDT recommended continued custody with foster parents and ordered Appellant to participate in parenting services and a psychological evaluation.
Over 14 months Appellant missed many visits, failed to engage in services, and exhibited disruptive behavior during visitations; safety concerns led to relocation of visits.
Permanency hearing resulted in termination and adoption as the chosen permanency plan, which Appellant challenged on appeal; the Supreme Court affirmed the termination/adoption plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Compelling reason for termination over guardianship	JO argues DFS must show a compelling reason to pursue termination over kinship guardianship	DFS contends §14-3-431(j) requires compelling reasons only for plans other than reunification, adoption or guardianship	Not required; statute governs compelling reasons for plans other than reunification/adoption/guardianship
Sufficiency of evidence to support permanency change	JO asserts insufficient evidence to justify changing from reunification to termination	DFS shows extensive evidence of Appellant's failure to engage and persistent risk to children	Evidence supports court’s decision; no abuse of discretion
Standing to assert familial rights of grandparents	JO claims grandparents have a constitutional right to visitation; mother may raise this	Grandparents’ rights are not personal to Mother; she lacks standing to raise them	Mother lacks standing to argue grandparents’ familial rights in this proceeding
Statutory findings for permanency plan modification	JO contends required findings under §14-3-431(j) and §14-3-429(a)(ii) were not adequately articulated	Record sufficiently explains why reunification was not feasible; §14-3-431(j) did not require a higher standard here; §14-3-429(a)(ii) inapplicable to permanency hearing	Statutory requirements were satisfied; no reversible error

HP v. State, 93 P.3d 982 (Wyoming 2004) (sufficiency review in neglect proceedings with deference to trial court)
TF v. Dep't of Family Serv. (In re CF), 120 P.3d 992 (Wyoming 2005) (standing and permanency considerations; extended family rights not raised here)
Matter of the Adoption of SMR, MVC v. MB, 982 P.2d 1246 (Wyoming 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for adoption decrees)
Blakely v. Blakely, 218 P.3d 253 (Wyoming 2009) (abuse of discretion standard in custody/visitation issues; best interests focus)
LW v. State (In the Interest of JW), 226 P.3d 873 (Wyoming 2010) (standard of review in neglect-related contexts)