390 P.3d 357
Wyo.2017Background
- In late 2014 DFS received reports that mother (AB) was using drugs and unable to care for her children JB, TLW, and KB; paternal grandmother initially took custody.
- The State filed a neglect petition against AB in January 2015; TW (father of JB and TLW) was incarcerated at that time and not served with the original petition.
- An amended petition (Aug. 2015) added an allegation that TW failed to provide adequate care because he was incarcerated and thus unable to care for the children; TW was not served with the amendment and did not appear initially.
- TW completed a corrections program in July 2015, escaped ACC in Sept. 2015, and was later arrested and brought to a juvenile court hearing in Dec. 2015 where a denial was entered on his behalf.
- At a bench trial (Feb. 2016) DFS’s investigator testified neither parent had provided shelter, meals, clothing, or medical/dental care for the children since Dec. 23, 2014; TW acknowledged he lacked physical custody during the relevant period.
- The juvenile court found both AB and TW neglected JB and TLW; TW appealed, arguing the statutory definition of “person responsible for a child’s welfare” requires physical custody or control, which he did not have while incarcerated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent/noncustodial parent must have physical custody or control to be a “person responsible for a child’s welfare” under Wyo. Stat. § 14-3-202(a)(i) | State: the statute’s “having physical custody or control” phrase only modifies the catchall category (“other person, institution or agency”), not the enumerated categories (parent, noncustodial parent, guardian, etc.). | TW: the statute requires physical custody/control for anyone listed, so he could not be found neglectful while lacking custody. | The court held the enumerated categories (parents, noncustodial parents, etc.) are inherently responsible without a custody requirement; the custody/control phrase applies only to the catchall category. TW’s conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler v. State, 358 P.3d 1259 (Wyo.) (distinguishing enumerated categories from catchall language when construing statutory definitions)
- Seherr-Thoss v. Teton County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 329 P.3d 936 (Wyo.) (legislative intent and plain meaning govern statutory interpretation)
- Nicodemus v. Lampert, 336 P.3d 671 (Wyo.) (construe statutes in pari materia and give effect to every word)
- Cheyenne Newspapers, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Laramie County School Dist. No. One, 384 P.3d 679 (Wyo.) (interpret statutes harmoniously and consider full text)
- Scott v. Scott, 918 P.2d 198 (Wyo.) (courts must follow statutory language and not substitute fairness for legislative intent)
- In re T.T.C., 855 A.2d 1117 (D.C. 2004) (noncustodial parent may be found neglectful only if shown to have knowledge and opportunity to act)