In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights to AGS and AMLD, Minor Children. SAS
2014 WY 143
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- Mother (SAS) has long history of substance abuse; children AGS and AMLD were removed multiple times (2007, 2008, 2011) after incidents including DUI, child endangerment, and a car rollover with a .17% BAC; juvenile adjudications of neglect/abuse followed.
- DFS obtained legal custody after a December 30, 2011 juvenile order; children remained in state custody through trial in December 2013.
- State filed a termination petition January 18, 2013, initially under Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and later amended to add § 14-2-309(a)(v) (15-of-22-months in foster care + parental unfitness); SAS was incarcerated at trial.
- District court found termination proven by clear and convincing evidence under both statutory bases and terminated SAS’s parental rights on December 27, 2013; SAS appealed.
- On appeal SAS argued lack of jurisdiction due to missed statutory deadlines, insufficiency of evidence to show unfitness, cumulative due process error, and (in her reply) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (SAS) | Defendant's Argument (State/DFS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Jurisdiction due to missed statutory deadlines (§14-3-431(o),(p)) | Missed 60-day filing and 90-day hearing deadlines deprived the court of jurisdiction | §14-3-403(b) preserves district court jurisdiction; continuances allowed for good cause | Court: No jurisdictional defect; §14-3-403(b) preserves jurisdiction; continuance for good cause permissible |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence to terminate under §14-2-309(a)(v) | Evidence insufficient; claimed relative placement and state delay made foster-care count improper | State showed children in DFS legal custody for requisite period and SAS unfit due to recurring substance abuse, criminal convictions, relapse, and incapacity while incarcerated | Court: Affirmed termination; clear and convincing evidence of 15-of-22 months in foster care and parental unfitness |
| 3. Cumulative due process errors (various procedural and evidentiary claims) | Multiple procedural errors combined to deprive SAS of due process | Errors either not shown, not preserved, or harmless; no plain error or prejudice demonstrated | Court: No plain error; cumulative-error claim fails because appellant did not show transgressions of clear rules or material prejudice |
| 4. Ineffective assistance of counsel raised in reply brief | Argued in reply that trial counsel was ineffective | Appellate rules limit new issues in reply; appellant failed to brief issue in opening brief so it was waived | Court: Issue waived for failing to raise and brief in opening brief; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahearn v. Anderson-Bishop P’ship, 946 P.2d 417 (Wyo. 1997) (subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- LDC v. State of Wyo., Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re ZKP), 979 P.2d 953 (Wyo. 1999) (termination requires clear and convincing proof; standard of review explained)
- DMM v. State of Wyo., Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re ZMETS), 276 P.3d 392 (Wyo. 2012) (only one statutory ground need be upheld to affirm termination)
- HJO v. State of Wyo., Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re KMO), 280 P.3d 1203 (Wyo. 2012) (fitness includes ability to meet child’s ongoing needs; past conduct relevant)
- Deeds v. State, 335 P.3d 473 (Wyo. 2014) (plain-error test for unpreserved appellate issues)