In Re Zmets, 2012 WY 68

Appellant DMM’s parental rights to four children were terminated by the district court under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v).
DFS petition alleged abuse/neglect, unsuccessful reunification efforts, and that continued custody would jeopardize the children’s health and safety.
The children had been in foster care under the State’s responsibility since October 7, 2009, with placement first in non-relative foster care and later with paternal grandparents in Colorado under DFS supervision.
Appellant failed to file a timely answer to the termination petition; a default was entered and a default hearing was held on April 27, 2011.
During the default hearing, Appellant was allowed limited participation but could not testify or call witnesses; DFS presented the caseworker’s testimony regarding ongoing substance abuse, poor communication, and failure to comply with the family service plans.
The district court found clear and convincing evidence under § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (a)(v) and determined termination was in the children’s best interests; the court entered a termination order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 14-2-309(a)(iii).	DMM argues insufficient evidence to show abuse/neglect and risk to health and safety.	DFS contends the evidence shows ongoing abuse/neglect and unsuccessful rehabilitation.	Yes; evidence supports § 14-2-309(a)(iii).
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 14-2-309(a)(v).	N/A (defaulting parent challenging sufficiency).	DFS asserts the statutory elements are met given fifteen of twenty-two months in state foster care and parental unfitness.	Yes; evidence supports § 14-2-309(a)(v).
Whether a defaulting parent may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.	Appellant should be allowed to contest sufficiency due to participation at the hearing (limited).	DFS argues default bars such challenge to sufficiency.	A defaulting parent who appeared at the hearing may challenge sufficiency on appeal.
Whether the default hearing procedure ensured due process and a proper record for review.	Appellant’s appearance and limited participation preserved due process rights.	The procedure mirrors civil cases where default damages are challenged; adequate for termination review.	Procedure was proper and allowed challenge to sufficiency.

In re L.A., 215 P.3d 266 (Wy. 2009) (strict scrutiny in termination; clear and convincing standard)
In the Interest of L.L., 159 P.3d 499 (Wy. 2007) (fundamental rights and strict scrutiny in termination)
In re A.D., 151 P.3d 1102 (Wy. 2007) (enhanced safeguards; termination standards)
AJJ v. State (In re KMJ), 242 P.3d 968 (Wy. 2010) (fitness to parent evaluated in context; past behavior relevant)
In re ARC, 258 P.3d 704 (Wy. 2011) (two elements for § 14-2-309(a)(v): duration in state care and unfitness)
Rosty v. Skaj, 272 P.3d 947 (Wy. 2012) (default procedures; challenge to damages/evidence permissible)
Halberstam v. Cokeley, 872 P.2d 109 (Wy. 1994) (civil-default procedures and evidence assessment)
Midway Oil Corp. v. Guess, 714 P.2d 339 (Wy. 1986) (default damages procedure; civil analogue)
JD and SE v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Servs., 208 P.3d 1323 (Wy. 2009) (grounds for termination; clear and convincing standard)
In re SRJ (MDW v. Hot Springs County Dep't of Family Servs.), 212 P.3d 611 (Wy. 2009) (statutory grounds; dependency and foster care duration)
Sinclair v. City of Gillette, 270 P.3d 644 (Wy. 2012) (statutory interpretation; foster care terminology)