544 P.3d 606
Wyo.2024Background
- The case involves consolidated appeals by both parents (Mother and Father) challenging a juvenile court’s decision to change the permanency plan for their five children from reunification to adoption or guardianship after over three years in state custody.
- Father was initially arrested for aggravated assault in 2019, resulting in the removal of the children from his custody. Mother lived in another state and was identified as a potential non-offending placement.
- DFS formulated case plans for both parents; key barriers included Father’s inability to secure housing and Mother’s ongoing relationship with a domestically violent partner (Mr. Proctor) and past substantiated discipline allegations.
- Mother’s attempts to regain custody involved approved and denied home studies (via Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, ICPC), failed cooperation, and incidents involving Mr. Proctor’s ongoing presence—despite protective orders and court directives.
- An evidentiary permanency hearing was conducted where the guardian ad litem (GAL) argued for adoption; the court granted the change in permanency plan, finding DFS had made reasonable efforts.
- Both parents appealed the change in permanency plan and raised procedural and due process challenges related to the use of ICPC, the role of the GAL, and admission of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Change to adoption/guardianship plan | DFS failed to make reasonable efforts at reunification | DFS provided accessible, available, and appropriate services | Court found no abuse of discretion; affirmed plan change |
| Use of ICPC to determine Mother’s fitness | ICPC shouldn’t delay or apply to out-of-state parent | ICPC is a practical and appropriate tool for assessment | No plain error; courts are split, no clear law violated |
| GAL proving grounds for permanency change | Only State should bear burden of proof | GAL can present evidence as child’s best interest advocate | No plain error; GAL may present evidence |
| Admission of late evidence by GAL | Violated due process, hindered defense preparation | Evidence was known, and opportunity to respond existed | No due process violation; adequate opportunity provided |
Key Cases Cited
- Int. of RR, 492 P.3d 246 (Wyo. 2021) (reasonable efforts standard for changing permanency plans)
- Int. of SRS, 529 P.3d 1074 (Wyo. 2023) (abuse of discretion review standard for permanency changes)
- Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145 (Wyo. 1998) (GAL's hybrid role in Wyoming child protection proceedings)