In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To ARW, a minor child: DRW
2015 Wyo. LEXIS 30
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- DRW (Father) appeals district court termination of parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv) while incarcerated for felony convictions.
- ARW, born 2002, was in the care of adoptive couple DLP and MLP since ARW was three weeks old; they had permanent guardianship after the biological mother relinquished rights.
- ARW’s mother consented to termination and adoption by Appellees; she relinquished parental responsibilities soon after ARW’s birth.
- Father’s repeated incarcerations for drug offenses during ARW’s life led to no contact with ARW for extended periods; home conditions and alcohol use by Father were concerns.
- In 2012, a sexual assault report involving ARW’s friend led to ARW’s removal from Father’s custody; police found marijuana paraphernalia and improper materials in Father’s home; Father was arrested and later pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a minor.
- Appellees filed the petition to terminate parental rights in April 2013; default was entered against Father in May 2013; a hearing was continued for GAL appointment and home study; Father later filed an answer and a motion to set aside default in August 2013; the court denied relief from default and proceeded with termination, later addressing ICWA applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA applies to the termination proceedings | DRW argues ARW may be an Indian child and ICWA notice/standards apply | Appellees contend ICWA does not apply since ARW’s mother relinquished rights and Father has no Native heritage | ICWA does not apply to the termination proceeding |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the default-set-aside motion | DRW asserts good cause under Rule 55(c) and Rule 60(b) due to transfer and access issues | Appellees argue no adequate showing of good cause; Father had notice and evidence of petition | No abuse of discretion; no demonstrated good cause |
| Whether there is sufficient evidence to terminate parental rights](aiv) on unfitness | DRW contends evidence does not prove unfitness | Appellees maintain clear and convincing evidence of unfitness given incarceration, sexual offenses, and failure to meet ARW’s needs | Evidence supports termination; Appellees proved unfitness by clear and convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) (ICWA applies where breakup of Indian family is at stake; not implicated when parent relinquishes rights)
- Holyfield, 490 U.S. 680 (1989) (ICWA purposes to prevent unwarranted removal; remedial services focus on preventing removal)
- In re KMJ (AJJ v. State), 2010 WY 142, 242 P.3d 968 (Wy. 2010) (fitness evaluated at termination; prior unfitness considered)
- In re L.A., 2009 WY 109, 215 P.3d 266 (Wy. 2009) (strict scrutiny for termination; clear and convincing standard)
- In re KAT (NLT v. State), 2012 WY 150, 288 P.3d 1217 (Wy. 2012) (incarceration affects fitness; evidence of ongoing needs)