294 P.3d 904
Wyo.2013Background
- Mother challenges guardianship of LNP by Grandparents under ICWA.
- LNP born in Oklahoma in 2006; lived with Grandparents since Sept 2010 after Mother sought help.
- Grandparents obtained temporary guardianship; later sought plenary guardianship with Mother's consent; Mother opposed conversion.
- LNP displayed trauma signs; diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder; alleged sexual abuse; counselor opined abuse occurred.
- Cherokee Nation initially notified; tribe determined LNP is Indian child but declined to intervene; guardianship upheld under ICWA and Wyoming law.
- District court found Mother unfit and that return would likely cause serious emotional damage; guardianship continued with potential future termination if Mother rehabilitates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICWA notice timing and adequacy | Mother argues ten-day ICWA notice was defective. | Grandparents contend no mandatory notice if court lacked knowledge of Indian status and that any error was harmless. | Notice error deemed harmless; however, error found and not reversible. |
| Qualified expert witness under ICWA § 1912(e) | Mother contends Rubeck was not a qualified expert. | Grandparents contend Rubeck qualified; tribal customs not required. | Rubeck deemed a qualified expert; no abuse of discretion. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that return to Mother would cause serious emotional or physical damage | Mother argues insufficient evidence; police reports lacking corroboration; credibility issues with Mother. | Grandparents emphasize LNP’s trauma history and risk of regression if returned. | Clear and convincing evidence supports likely serious damage if returned. |
| Active efforts to provide remedial services under ICWA § 1912(d) | Mother claims lack of active efforts to reunify and provide services. | Grandparents note efforts to support reunification and role of guardianship; no proven failure to offer services. | Review limited; guardianship affirmed; arguments insufficient to reverse. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spilman v. State, 633 P.2d 183 (Wyo. 1981) (error must prejudice substantial rights to warrant reversal)
- Conner v. Board of County Comm’rs, 54 P.3d 1274 (Wyo. 2002) (harmless error review for deficient notice)
- In re MEO, 138 P.3d 1145 (Wyo. 2006) (framework for reviewing parental fitness and ICWA findings)
- DLH v. JLA (In re AMP), 286 P.3d 746 (Wyo. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for expert qualification and credibility)
- ZMETS v. State, 276 P.3d 392 (Wyo. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)