In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To HLL and KGS, Minor Children: CLB v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services
2016 WY 43
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Mother had a long history of child abuse, substance abuse, and violence: one child died from blunt force trauma (Mother convicted), other children’s rights previously relinquished/terminated. Two remaining children are HLL (b.2001) and KGS (b.2003).
- Multiple interventions by DF S/Wyoming since 2007, including shelter care in 2008 after physical abuse and again in 2013 after Mother’s arrest for a baseball-bat assault; the children remained in Department custody from February 2013 onward.
- Mother was convicted of aggravated assault and battery (baseball-bat attack) and incarcerated (3–6 years) at time of termination proceedings; she was personally served with the Department’s petition October 23, 2014.
- Clerk entered default when Mother failed to timely answer; Mother moved to set aside the entry of default, which the district court denied after a hearing; court nevertheless appointed counsel and held a termination hearing.
- At the hearing the Department presented evidence; the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted under Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(iv) (incarceration + unfitness) and (v) (15-of-22 months in foster care + unfitness), and terminated Mother’s parental rights; Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction | District court lacked jurisdiction because Department allegedly violated its shelter-care procedures | Filing of a termination petition in district court invoked its jurisdiction; procedural issues in shelter-care are irrelevant to jurisdiction | Court affirmed jurisdiction: petition invoked district court power to hear TPR action |
| Applicability of W.R.C.P. 55 (default rule) | Rule 55 shouldn’t apply because TPR proceedings are like criminal cases, not civil | TPR statutes expressly make Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure applicable, so Rule 55 applies | Court held TPR proceedings are civil and Rule 55 applies, but default judgment requires statutory hearing and clear & convincing proof |
| Motion to set aside entry of default | Mother claimed high stress excused late response and moved to set aside default | Department argued delay was negligent and children would be prejudiced by delay in permanency | Court refused to set aside default: applied three-factor test (prejudice, meritorious defense, culpable conduct) and found Mother failed to show good cause |
| Sufficiency of evidence for termination | Mother argued evidence was insufficient to meet clear-and-convincing standard | Department produced evidence of felony incarceration and extensive unfitness (violent conduct, past abuse, unsafe home, substance abuse, children in state custody) | Court found overwhelming clear-and-convincing evidence to terminate under §14-2-309(a)(iv); affirmed termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re ARW, 343 P.3d 407 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for reviewing TPR sufficiency and applicability of civil rules)
- In re ZMETS, 276 P.3d 392 (Wyo. 2012) (default in TPR: parent’s participation when in default and requirement for proof)
- KC v. State, 351 P.3d 236 (Wyo. 2015) (TPR hearing procedures: civil rules and evidence apply)
- Matter of Adoption of JLP, 774 P.2d 624 (Wyo. 1989) (TPR proceedings are civil in nature)
- Matter of GP, 679 P.2d 976 (Wyo. 1984) (TPR is civil, not criminal)
- RDG Oil & Gas, LLC v. Jayne Morton Living Trust, 331 P.3d 1199 (Wyo. 2014) (three-factor test for setting aside default: prejudice, meritorious defense, culpable conduct)
- In re FM, 163 P.3d 844 (Wyo. 2007) (due process protections in TPR matters)
- Multiple Resort Ownership Plan, Inc. v. Design-Build-Manage, Inc., 45 P.3d 647 (Wyo. 2002) (entry of default is clerical and interlocutory; default vs. default judgment)