In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: GAC, a Minor Child. Krystal Kaylynn Cave v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services
2017 WY 65
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- In May 2013 a two‑year‑old child was found wandering, inadequately clothed; DFS took protective custody. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine and earlier had lived in unstable housing.
- Parties entered a juvenile consent decree requiring Mother to complete a DFS case plan (substance‑abuse and mental‑health treatment and releases for counseling records); Mother signed the plan but did not complete it.
- After reinstatement and adjudication for neglect, DFS changed permanency goal to adoption and petitioned in district court to terminate Mother’s parental rights under Wyo. Stat. § 14‑2‑309(a)(iii) and (v).
- The court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for the Child. Mother moved to limit the GAL’s active participation and separately moved to exclude testimony from her treating counselors. Initial trial resulted in a mistrial; at retrial the district court allowed full GAL participation and admitted testimony from Mother’s treating providers.
- A jury found statutory grounds for termination; Mother appealed challenging (1) the GAL’s active role and (2) admission of treating‑provider testimony (discovery compliance and privilege). The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the GAL may actively participate in termination proceedings | Cave: GAL should be restricted because the child is not a party and best‑interest evidence is irrelevant to statutory grounds | DFS/GAL: GAL is appointed to represent child's interests and must actively participate (pleadings, evidence, argument) | Court: GAL may fully participate; statutes, rules, and case law require active advocacy for child |
| Whether DFS’s treating providers were subject to Rule 26(a)(2)(B)(i) expert‑report requirements | Cave: DFS failed to disclose expert reports as required, so providers should be excluded | DFS: Treating providers are not retained experts under (B)(i) but must provide summaries under (B)(ii) | Court: No abuse of discretion; (B)(i) doesn’t apply to treating providers and Mother did not challenge (B)(ii) compliance |
| Whether treating‑provider testimony was barred by counseling privilege | Cave: Mother revoked releases; privileged communications cannot be used at trial | DFS/GAL: Mother had executed releases and relevant exceptions apply (earlier disclosure; child‑abuse/neglect exceptions; §14‑3‑210) | Court: Testimony admissible — prior releases waived privilege for disclosed material; statutory exceptions also permit admission |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental‑rights termination requires heightened due‑process protections)
- LM v. Laramie County Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re MN), 171 P.3d 1077 (Wyo. 2007) (statutory requirement to appoint GAL and protect child’s interests)
- Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145 (Wyo. 1998) (GAL acts as attorney for child and must actively participate; reconcile client preference and best interest)
- BA v. Laramie County Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re FM), 163 P.3d 844 (Wyo. 2007) (statutory grounds, not just best interests, must support termination)
- Trujillo v. State, 880 P.2d 575 (Wyo. 1994) (revocation of release does not undo disclosure already made)
- Cooper v. State, 46 P.3d 884 (Wyo. 2002) (scope and policy behind counselor/patient privilege)