In the Interest of: DJS-Y and APY, Minor Children, CY v. State
2017 WY 54
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Mother (CY) and the State stipulated to a Consent Decree in a juvenile neglect action; decree said it would "expire and be deemed dismissed" if no further action was taken and was in force for six months.
- Consent Decree entered October 28, 2015; children remained in DFS custody.
- More than six months later (Mother moved to dismiss on June 2, 2016), the State had not initiated any action alleging noncompliance within the six-month term.
- The juvenile court denied Mother’s motion, found "good cause," extended the decree an additional six months, and allowed the State 15 days to amend the petition.
- Mother appealed; after the appeal was filed the children were returned and the juvenile court closed the case, but this Court retained the appeal under a mootness exception to resolve the legal question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot? | Case is not moot because exceptions apply and court should decide merits. | Case is moot because children returned and case closed. | Court: Matter technically moot but exception (guidance to lower courts) applies; will decide on merits. |
| Could the juvenile court extend the Consent Decree after its six-month term expired when the State took no action within that period? | Decree’s plain terms mandated dismissal if no action taken within six months; State’s inaction triggered automatic dismissal. | Juvenile court may extend the decree for good cause to protect children despite lapse. | Court: Decree must be enforced as written; State’s failure to act within six months meant decree expired and the court lacked authority to extend it; reversal of denial of dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Shane Edeburn Constr., LLC, 285 P.3d 949 (Wyo. 2012) (defines mootness as lack of live controversy).
- Operation Save America v. City of Jackson, 275 P.3d 438 (Wyo. 2012) (recognizes exceptions to mootness).
- Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Dist. v. Lee Newspapers, 332 P.3d 523 (Wyo. 2014) (discusses mootness exceptions).
- MR v. State (In re CDR), 351 P.3d 264 (Wyo. 2015) (consent decrees are contractual; noted dismissal if decree expires without complaint).
- DB v. State (In re CRA), 368 P.3d 294 (Wyo. 2016) (distinguishes expiration versus court discharge of consent decrees).
- United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1975) (consent decrees must be construed as written).