344 P.3d 759
Wyo.2015Background
- Appellant (EL) appealed district court’s May 30, 2014 order terminating his parental rights to three minor children after he defaulted.
- District court held a default hearing and found clear and convincing evidence of two statutory grounds: EL was incarcerated on a felony and unfit, and the children had been in foster care 15 of 22 months with EL unfit (Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(iv) & (v)).
- Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel initially moved to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. The Wyoming Supreme Court denied dismissal and instructed counsel to follow Anders procedure if seeking withdrawal.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court formally announced it will permit Anders briefs in parental-termination appeals and set procedures for counsel seeking withdrawal.
- Counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw; the Court reviewed the record, gave EL an opportunity to file pro se argument, and received a two-page pro se letter that contained no cogent legal argument.
- The Court affirmed the district court’s termination order and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anders procedure may be used by appointed counsel in parental-termination appeals | State: not directly argued; Court sought to permit Anders filings as consistent with efficient appellate practice | EL: no substantive appellate argument presented in pro se filing | Court: Anders procedure is permissible for appointed counsel in termination appeals and set procedural requirements |
| Whether district court’s termination order should be reversed after default and default hearing | EL: argued generally (pro se letter) but raised no cogent legal grounds | State: termination supported by statutory grounds and clear-and-convincing evidence | Court: affirmed termination based on incarceration/unfitness and 15-of-22-months foster care/unfitness findings |
| Whether appointed counsel could withdraw after filing Anders brief | Counsel: sought to withdraw, asserting no nonfrivolous issues | EL: did not present persuasive contrary argument | Court: granted counsel’s motion to withdraw after independent review and afforded EL chance to respond |
| Whether pro se submission preserved any nonfrivolous issue | EL: submitted a two-page letter claiming error but without legal argument | State: urged affirmation | Court: pro se letter did not present cogent legal issues; appeal frivolous; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (permitting counsel to request withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- A.C. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 362 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. Ct. App.) (endorsing Anders approach in parental-termination appeals)
- L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761 (Utah App.) (discussing counsel’s duties and Anders applicability in termination cases)
- Linker-Flores v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 194 S.W.3d 739 (Ark.) (authorizing Anders-type procedure in termination appeals)
- In the Interest of D.E.S., A.L.G., C.W.M.G., II and M.P.G., 135 S.W.3d 326 (Tex. App.) (same conclusion regarding Anders procedure)