Jason Michael Johnson v. Bretteny Marie Calkins
2017 WY 50
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Mother petitioned in March 2015 to terminate Father’s parental rights to their child (born 2006) under Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(i) and (iv); Father was represented and tried the case by telephone from federal prison.
- Father had intermittent, limited contact with the child after separation in 2006; focused interactions were generally directed at Mother, not the child.
- Father was imprisoned multiple times (state and federal) for aggravated assault and felon-in-possession charges; he made only sporadic, small child-support payments (last pre-petition payment January 2012) and was over $8,000 arrears as of December 2015.
- From late 2011 until the petition, Father made essentially no direct communications to the child; his contacts were primarily to Mother (emails/letters), some of which post-dated the petition or were returned unopened.
- The district court found clear and convincing evidence supporting termination under § 14-2-309(a)(i) (child left in care of another, no support, no communication for at least one year) and also cited (a)(iv); this appeal challenges sufficiency and whether lesser remedies were required before termination.
Issues
| Issue | Calkins’ Argument (Plaintiff) | Johnson’s Argument (Defendant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 14-2-309(a)(i) was satisfied (no support / no communication for ≥1 year) | Mother: Father left child in her care, made no support payments for years, and had no meaningful communication with child for well over one year | Father: He made some payments, attempted communication (emails/letters), and Mother interfered (blocked emails, returned mail) | Held: Court affirmed — clear and convincing evidence satisfied § 14-2-309(a)(i) (support and communication requirements met) |
| Whether § 14-2-309(a)(iv) (incarceration + unfitness) supported termination | Mother: Father’s felony incarceration and conduct showed unfitness | Father: He made substantive efforts to be a fit parent while incarcerated | Held: Court did not need to rely on (a)(iv) because (a)(i) independently supported termination; (a)(iv) not required to be addressed for affirmance |
| Whether Mother had to pursue less intrusive remedies before seeking termination | Mother: Statute does not require petitioner to exhaust lesser remedies under (a)(i) or (a)(iv) | Father: Mother should have sought enforcement, supervised visitation, or other less restrictive measures first | Held: Court rejected Father’s claim — only subsection (a)(iii) requires rehabilitative efforts; (a)(i) and (a)(iv) do not impose such a precondition |
| Whether incidental or attempted post-petition communications defeat § 14-2-309(a)(i) | Mother: Statute allows disregard of incidental/insubstantial contacts and excludes post-filing attempts | Father: Late communications and attempts to contact show ongoing relationship | Held: Court held incidental contacts and post-petition attempts are disregarded; communications before filing were insufficient to defeat (a)(i) |
Key Cases Cited
- AJJ v. State (In re KMJ), 242 P.3d 968 (Wyo. 2010) (deference to district court credibility findings on sufficiency review)
- RAA v. AW, 384 P.3d 1156 (Wyo. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- DMM v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re ZMETS, ZCJS, ZPMS, and ZKMS), 276 P.3d 392 (Wyo. 2012) (any single statutory ground supports termination)
- MDW v. Hot Springs County Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re SRJ), 212 P.3d 611 (Wyo. 2009) (statutory bases for termination are separate and independent)
- SLJ v. Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re SJJ), 104 P.3d 74 (Wyo. 2005) (only subsection (a)(iii) requires prior rehabilitative efforts)
- RW v. State, 766 P.2d 555 (Wyo. 1989) (clarifies that (a)(iv) does not impose a statutory duty to show termination is least intrusive means)