529 P.3d 1074
Wyo.2023Background
- Children SRS (13, significant mental-health needs; history of running away and false reports) and LS (≈6, autistic; initially nonverbal and incontinent) were taken into protective custody after police found the parents asleep in a filthy, padlocked home and Mother reported SRS missing; court placed children with State custody in Oct. 2020 and set family reunification as the permanency plan.
- DFS created repeated case plans requiring therapy, psychological evaluation, stable housing, employment, and consistent supervision; parents intermittently engaged but repeatedly missed appointments and visits, were evicted multiple times, and failed to secure safe, stable housing.
- LS made marked developmental gains in foster care (potty trained, more verbal, structured routine); SRS improved substantially in placement (better mental/emotional health and school performance) but had a strained relationship with Mother.
- DFS recommended changing the permanency plan to adoption after ~18 months because parents made little sustained progress and living conditions (including an RV with no utilities and hazardous conditions) posed safety risks.
- Juvenile court conducted an evidentiary hearing in April 2022, found DFS made reasonable reunification efforts, concluded parents had not remedied the conditions that led to removal, and changed the permanency plan to adoption; both parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption (Father) | Father: he made substantial progress and only needed more time; reunification, not adoption, is better given his bond with the children and therapy progress | State/DFS: Father’s progress was inconsistent, he missed appointments, failed to secure stable housing/employment, regressed as adoption became likely; DFS made reasonable efforts | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; insufficient sustained progress after 18 months and children benefited from stability in custody, so adoption is in best interests |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption (Mother) | Mother: insufficient evidence — court relied on contradicted statements (SRS said she wanted to return) | State/DFS: Mother repeatedly failed to engage in therapy, was dropped by providers, behaved disruptively, failed to secure safe housing, and negatively impacted SRS; DFS made reasonable efforts | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; court credited evidence of Mother’s poor progress and safety concerns despite SRS’s conflicting testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Interest of SMD, 503 P.3d 644 (Wyo. 2022) (abuse-of-discretion review of permanency-plan changes; parents’ early progress then regression supported adoption)
- Interest of AM, 497 P.3d 914 (Wyo. 2021) (court must find plan not in child’s best interests and reasonable DFS efforts before changing plan)
- Interest of GC, 351 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2015) (parents are not entitled to indefinite time to complete case plans)
- Interest of BP, 518 P.3d 698 (Wyo. 2022) (State must prove by a preponderance that reunification is not in the child’s best interests and DFS made reasonable efforts)
- Matter of JPL, 493 P.3d 174 (Wyo. 2021) (lack of sufficient progress within a reasonable time supports permanency-plan change)
- In re A.D., 151 P.3d 1102 (Wyo. 2007) (children’s right to stability and permanency can outweigh parental association rights)
- SD v. Carbon Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 57 P.3d 1235 (Wyo. 2002) (when parental interests conflict with children’s safety and stability, children’s interests prevail)