In the Interest of: BFW, a Minor Child, DW and KW v. State
2017 WY 64
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- County attorney filed juvenile petition alleging the minor child was neglected under Wyo. Stat. § 14-3-402(a)(xii)(A) and (B).
- The case proceeded to a jury trial; jury found the parents (Appellants DW and KW) had neglected the child but did not find abuse allegations to be true.
- The juvenile court adjudged the child neglected under the Child Protection Act, Wyo. Stat. § 14-3-401 et seq.
- Appellants timely appealed, missed the initial appellate briefing deadline, and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution under W.R.A.P. 7.11.
- Appellants successfully petitioned for reinstatement under W.R.A.P. 15 based on excusable neglect; the appeal proceeded to consideration on the merits of briefing.
- Appellants’ appellate brief lacked cogent argument and supporting legal authority for the issues they raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court’s neglect adjudication should be reversed | Appellants (DW & KW): claim errors by the juvenile court (unclear) | State: contends adjudication stands; Appellants failed to present cogent appellate argument | Affirmed — court summarily affirms because appellants’ brief contains no cogent argument or pertinent authority |
| Whether dismissal for want of prosecution and later reinstatement affected appeal | Appellants: sought reinstatement citing excusable neglect | State: opposed dismissal but reinstatement was properly addressed by the Court of Appeals | Reinstatement was granted; procedural posture does not cure inadequate briefing; appeal summarily affirmed |
| Whether appellate briefing complied with W.R.A.P. and merits review warranted | Appellants: filed brief but failed to tie issues to argument or authority | State: implicitly relies on procedural rules and prior precedent requiring cogent briefing | Held that briefing deficiencies justify summary affirmance under controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85 (Wyo. 1995) (court may summarily affirm claims not presented with cogent argument or authority)
- Small v. Convenience Plus Partners, Ltd., 6 P.3d 1254 (Wyo. 2000) (summarily affirming where appellant’s brief lacked cogent argument)
- State ex rel. Reece v. Wyoming State Bd. of Outfitters & Prof’l Guides, 931 P.2d 958 (Wyo. 1997) (appellant’s failure to comply with appellate rules and lack of cogent legal argument justifies denial of relief)