In the Interest of LB, BO, KO, Minors, State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services v. DH and CB and State of Wyoming, 316 P.3d 1184

In August 2011 the State filed a juvenile neglect petition concerning BO and KO after reports of poor conditions and parental methamphetamine use while the children were visiting their mother, DH, in Wyoming.
After trial the juvenile court adjudicated the children neglected and ordered they remain in their father SO’s custody while under the protective supervision of the Department of Family Services (DFS).
At a permanency hearing about a year later the court set reunification as the plan, conditioned on DH obtaining a modification of an existing civil custody order within 60 days; if not modified, the plan would be termination of DH’s parental rights.
The juvenile court later ordered DFS to move to terminate DH’s parental rights when the custody modification did not occur. DFS’s counsel advised DFS it could not do so because the children were not in DFS’s legal custody.
The juvenile court rejected that position, ruled DFS is an “authorized agency” under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-310(a)(iii) even without custody, and directed DFS to file the termination petition. DFS appealed that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DFS must have physical or legal custody of a child to be an “authorized agency” able to file a parental-termination petition under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-310	DFS: It cannot file because it lacks custody and thus is not an "authorized agency" authorized to "care for and place children."	State/Juvenile court: DFS is a public social service agency statutorily authorized to care for and place children and may file termination petitions even when it does not have custody.	Court held DFS is an “authorized agency” regardless of whether it has physical or legal custody and affirmed the order requiring DFS to move to terminate DH’s parental rights.

MF v. State, 308 P.3d 854 (Wyo. 2013) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
In re Guardianship of Lankford, 301 P.3d 1092 (Wyo. 2013) (rules of statutory construction and giving effect to all parts of a statute)
Redco Constr. v. Profile Properties, LLC, 271 P.3d 408 (Wyo. 2012) (principles of statutory interpretation)
In re Padget, 678 P.2d 870 (Wyo. 1984) (separation-of-powers remark on executive charging authority referenced but not decided)