368 P.3d 910
Wyo.2016Background
- JR (born 2013) was left in the care of his maternal aunt, Tina Eshleman, in March 2014; she sought emergency and then permanent guardianship and was appointed temporary guardian.
- Full evidentiary hearing on permanent guardianship occurred May 20, 2015.
- Eshleman presented evidence of Mother's past methamphetamine use, prior incarceration, poor care of other children, and that JR thrived while living with Eshleman; she presented little evidence about Father and no evidence of current parental unfitness.
- Mother and Father (pro se) testified they live in Spokane, WA; both admitted past drug use but asserted current sobriety and stability; Mother was pregnant and home with family; Father employed.
- The district court found Eshleman failed to prove by a preponderance that either parent was presently unfit and denied permanent guardianship; Eshleman appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eshleman proved parents were presently unfit so guardianship could be appointed | Eshleman: past drug use, incarceration, poor prior care, and JR’s better condition with aunt show parents unfit | Parents: past mistakes but currently sober and able to parent; lack of evidence of present unfitness | Court: Eshleman failed to prove present unfitness by preponderance; guardianship denied |
| Whether district court applied improper standard or held Eshleman to a higher burden because parents were pro se | Eshleman: court treated her more strictly because parents were pro se | Court/Parents: burden is statutory preponderance; pro se status does not change burden | Held: no improper higher standard; correct legal standard applied |
| Whether court erred in disregarding guardian ad litem’s recommendation favoring guardianship | Eshleman: GAL recommended guardianship as parents not fit without help | Parents: credibility and weight of evidence are for the factfinder, not binding on court | Held: court may reject GAL recommendations; it did not abuse discretion |
| Whether evidentiary gaps (e.g., molestation allegation, criminal records) justified guardianship | Eshleman: allegations in petition supported necessity for guardianship | Court: petitioner failed to introduce evidence substantiating key allegations or current fitness issues | Held: lack of current, substantiated evidence fatal to petition |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Guardianship of MEO, 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006) (parental unfitness must be shown before appointing guardian; best-interests alone insufficient)
- In re SRB-M, 201 P.3d 1115 (Wyo. 2009) (guardianship cannot supplant a fit parent’s rights; unfitness finding is prerequisite)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due process protections for parents in custody alterations)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (parental rights to raise children are fundamental)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1978) (state may not remove children from natural parents without showing of unfitness)
- Olsen v. Olsen, 310 P.3d 888 (Wyo. 2013) (trial court not bound to follow guardian ad litem; credibility and weight are for the factfinder)