In the Interest of Cra, a Minor Child. Db v. State
2016 WY 24
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Five-year-old CRA was placed in Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) custody after her mother EA was arrested; DFS placed CRA with her maternal grandmother.
- A neglect petition was filed; the petition and DFS case plans omitted CRA’s father, DB, and did not reference shelter-care procedures.
- Parties (including DB) approved a statutory consent decree placing CRA in DFS custody for up to one year while EA completed a case plan; if EA completed the decree conditions the neglect case would be dismissed, and the county attorney retained discretion to reinstate the original petition.
- While the consent decree was in effect DB intermittently sought custody or greater visitation but repeatedly agreed in multidisciplinary team meetings that CRA remain with her grandmother.
- After the county attorney moved to dismiss the juvenile case on grounds EA completed the plan, the juvenile court dismissed without a hearing; DB appealed, and the appeals were consolidated with a prior permanency-order appeal.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed dismissal, holding no hearing or findings were required before discharge by motion of the county attorney and finding DB’s temporary-custody challenge moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DB) | Defendant's Argument (State / County Attorney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was a hearing required before the juvenile court dismissed the consent-decree case? | A hearing and findings were required to determine whether EA complied; if not, proceedings should be reinstated. | Statute and consent decree do not require a hearing; the county attorney has discretion to dismiss. | No hearing/findings required; county attorney’s motion to dismiss may be granted without hearing. |
| 2. Are DB’s other challenges (including temporary custody claim) moot? | The issues are live because DB’s parental rights were constitutionally affected during the juvenile case. | The juvenile case is dismissed and custody disputes now lie in district court; appellate relief would be advisory. | Claims regarding temporary custody during the juvenile case are moot; no mootness exception applies. |
| 3. Does a noncustodial parent have a constitutional right to temporary custody absent a finding of unfitness of the custodial parent? | DB contends noncustodial parent is entitled to temporary custody unless court finds custodial parent unfit. | Temporary placements in neglect proceedings are governed by Child Protection Act and consent decrees, not an absolute constitutional entitlement. | Court declines to address on merits (moot); also finds DB effectively agreed to placement by consent decree. |
Key Cases Cited
- LM v. Laramie County Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re MN), 171 P.3d 1077 (Wyo. 2007) (consent-decree contract principles and de novo review of legal questions)
- MR v. State (In re CDR), 351 P.3d 264 (Wyo. 2015) (consent decree construed as written; contract principles)
- Operation Save America v. City of Jackson, 275 P.3d 438 (Wyo. 2012) (mootness doctrine; when courts should dismiss as moot)
- Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. State (In re SNK), 108 P.3d 836 (Wyo. 2005) (consent decree rendered foster-placement appeal moot)
- KO v. LDH (In re Guardianship of MEO), 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006) (mootness standards)
- Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Dist. v. Lee Newspapers, 332 P.3d 523 (Wyo. 2014) (exceptions to mootness doctrine)