In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: LDB, TJB, and JCB, Minor Children, Sheryl Lynn Ellis v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, 454 P.3d 908

Mother was arrested for felony DUI after attempting to drive her three daughters while intoxicated; the children were taken into protective custody and placed with foster care.
Mother was later convicted and sentenced to 6–7 years in prison; the Department of Family Services (DFS) filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights on grounds of incarceration/unfitness and lengthy foster care placement.
The guardian ad litem (GAL) actively participated and, in pretrial filings, aligned with DFS on termination and on admitting testimony about the children’s allegations of sexual abuse.
At jury selection the district court allocated four peremptory strikes each to DFS, Mother, and the GAL (one of DFS’s four covered alternate jurors); Mother objected that DFS and the GAL should share challenges or she should receive more.
The court admitted testimony about the children’s sexual-abuse allegations but barred evidence or argument about the investigatory status or whether allegations had been substantiated.
A six-person jury found clear-and-convincing grounds for termination; Mother appealed, arguing (1) improper allocation of peremptory challenges and (2) erroneous admission/exclusion of evidence regarding the abuse allegations.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DFS/GAL’s Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by allocating separate peremptory challenges to DFS and the GAL instead of making them share or giving Mother more	Allocation was improper because DFS and the GAL were aligned and not antagonistic; they should share challenges or Mother should get extra to equalize	GAL and DFS said GAL is a participatory party with independent status entitling it to its own challenges; court should exercise discretion to grant separate allotments	Court held allocation was an abuse of discretion (GAL and DFS were aligned) but the error was harmless: Mother failed to show prejudice and the evidence supporting termination was overwhelming
Admissibility of testimony about children’s sexual-abuse allegations and exclusion of evidence about whether allegations were substantiated	Testimony was unreliable/prejudicial and exclusion of substantiation evidence deprived Mother of fair presentation	Testimony is relevant to parental unfitness and the GAL supported its admission; investigatory/substantiation status is likely confusing/prejudicial and properly excluded	Court held admission of the children’s testimony was not Rule 404(b) error and was permissible as relevant to fitness; exclusion of evidence about investigatory/substantiation status was not an abuse of discretion (no offer of proof and risk of confusion)

Wardell v. McMillan, 844 P.2d 1052 (Wyo. 1992) (sets framework for allocating peremptory challenges among aligned parties and announces reversible-error rule in limited context)
Cargill, Inc. v. Mountain Cement Co., 891 P.2d 57 (Wyo. 1995) (good-faith controversy/antagonism test for splitting peremptory challenges)
Smyth v. Kaufman, 67 P.3d 1161 (Wyo. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion review of challenge allocation)
Klahn v. State, 96 P.3d 472 (Wyo. 2004) (applies harmless-error analysis to erroneous denial of for-cause challenge and curative peremptory use)
Castellanos v. State, 366 P.3d 1279 (Wyo. 2016) (applies Klahn’s harmless-error standard to jury-selection claims)
Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1988) (peremptory challenges are not of constitutional dimension; States determine their remedy)
United States v. Martinez–Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2000) (exercise of peremptory challenges to cure for-cause denial does not implicate a federal right)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (States may choose harmless-error or automatic-reversal remedies for erroneous denial of peremptory challenges)
In re C.E.W., 368 N.W.2d 47 (Wis. 1985) (discusses GAL alignment and sharing peremptory challenges)
Matter of BAD, 446 P.3d 222 (Wyo. 2019) (parental past conduct is relevant to current fitness in termination proceedings)