In the Interest of: DT and NT, Minor Children.<br /> ST v. State, 2017 WY 36

In 2014 police removed two children (DT and NT) from a cluttered motel room after finding unsafe conditions, alcohol, drugs, and neglect; DFS filed a neglect petition.
Mother stipulated to neglect, entered a six-month consent decree requiring housing, parenting classes, ASI evaluation and recommended IOP treatment, UA testing, and employment; decree could be revoked on noncompliance.
Mother completed parenting classes and an initial ASI and provided two negative UAs but repeatedly failed to follow through with IOP, continue UA testing, maintain stable housing or employment, and missed multiple DFS contacts.
Children were placed with maternal grandparents in South Dakota via ICPC and expressed a desire to be adopted by them; DFS and the MDT later recommended changing the permanency plan to adoption.
A permanency hearing was held April 14, 2016 without the children present; the GAL and DFS caseworker reported the children’s preference for adoption. The juvenile court changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by not determining children’s presence before the hearing, (2) due process/equal protection were violated by holding the hearing without the children, and (3) insufficient evidence supported the change to adoption. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State/GAL Argument	Held
Whether court committed plain error by not determining child presence prior to hearing	Statute requires a prehearing determination whether the child should be present	Statute permits determination at hearing; court ultimately made determination and recorded children’s wishes via GAL/DFS	Court: Determination should be made prior to hearing, but no plain error where court made it at close of hearing and children’s wishes were adequately conveyed
Whether Mother’s due process/equal protection rights were violated by holding hearing without children	Mother claimed right to familial association and that absence of children denied due process and equal protection	Mother had full procedural rights at hearing; she did not call children, object, or show prejudice; GAL and DFS relayed children’s preferences	Court: No plain error; Mother’s due process rights were not violated; equal protection argument not developed and not considered
Sufficiency of evidence to change permanency plan from reunification to adoption	Mother argued DFS focused on her failures and did not show reasonable efforts to provide services	DFS documented repeated efforts, offers to pay for UA testing, housing help, job referrals, and that Mother failed to follow through	Court: No abuse of discretion; clear-and-convincing evidence showed reunification efforts failed and adoption was in children’s best interests

In re CRA, 368 P.3d 294 (Wyo. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
KC v. State, 351 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2015) (due process rights at permanency hearings; standard of parent participation)
In re AGS, 337 P.3d 470 (Wyo. 2014) (limitations on raising new issues on appeal; fundamental rights exception)
Deeds v. State, 335 P.3d 473 (Wyo. 2014) (plain error standard described)
In re Termination of Parental Rights to IH, 33 P.3d 172 (Wyo. 2001) (fundamental nature of parental-rights issues)
In re RE, 267 P.3d 1092 (Wyo. 2011) (standard for permanency-plan change and preponderance review in neglect proceedings)
In re MC, 299 P.3d 75 (Wyo. 2013) (rules for sufficiency review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
Peak v. Peak, 383 P.3d 1084 (Wyo. 2016) (refusal to consider undeveloped arguments)
In re "H" Children, 79 P.3d 997 (Wyo. 2003) (court will not consider arguments lacking cogent analysis or authority)