In the Interest Of: RAA, AMA, and CMA, Minor Children, RA v. AW
2016 WY 117
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Father (RA) imprisoned on federal convictions from 2006; released to supervised release in Nov. 2014.
- Mother (AW) moved with the children from Texas to Wyoming, became gatekeeper of communications, and did not require or facilitate children writing to Father.
- From 2008–2014 Father sent over 40 letters and cards to his children (holiday, birthday, and personal letters).
- Mother withheld some mail and refused visitation/phone contact after Father’s release; Father filed for visitation in Laramie County on Jan. 9, 2015.
- Mother filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i); district court found communications were incidental and granted termination.
- Wyoming Supreme Court reversed, holding Mother failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s communications were “incidental” and that there was no communication for one year.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether communications were "incidental" under § 14-2-309(a)(i) | Father’s contacts were sporadic, token, and therefore incidental; supports TPR | Father consistently sent letters/cards over years; communications were more than incidental | Communications were not merely incidental; Mother failed to prove lack of communication for one year, so TPR reversed |
| Whether lack of communication for one year (statutory element) was established | Argued statutory element met because contacts were incidental and could be disregarded | Argued the written communications and attempts were sufficient to defeat the one-year no-communication element | Court: element not proven by clear and convincing evidence; reversal |
| Whether court may consider intentionality when defining "incidental" | Implied argument that intentionality matters (communications into a void are meaningless) | Argued that "incidental" can include intentional but insignificant contacts; focus on substance and consistency | Court: "incidental" means casual/significant-minor; intentionality not dispositive; Father’s consistent substantive letters removed them from "incidental" |
| Whether best-interest findings can salvage termination absent statutory grounds | Mother relied on children’s established life with Mother/stepfather and best-interest testimony | Father argued grounds must be proven before best-interest analysis; procedural protections required | Court: Cannot reach best-interest until statutory grounds proven by clear and convincing evidence; reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re ARW, 343 P.3d 407 (Wyo. 2015) (statutory interpretation standard and review of termination evidence)
- In re HLL, 372 P.3d 185 (Wyo. 2016) (clear-and-convincing standard and strict scrutiny in TPR cases)
- In re FM, 163 P.3d 844 (Wyo. 2007) (procedural protections and analogy of TPR to capital punishment)
- In re SJJ, 104 P.3d 74 (Wyo. 2005) (communications found sporadic/incidental supporting termination)
- In Interest of DG, 916 P.2d 991 (Wyo. 1996) (limited sporadic contacts characterized as incidental)
- Matter of SKJ, 673 P.2d 640 (Wyo. 1983) (incidental communications framework)