KC v. State, 2015 WY 73

GC, a two-year-old, was taken into protective custody after mother KC failed to provide a safe home; drug issues surfaced (methamphetamine, THC).
MDT repeatedly recommended family reunification as GC's permanency goal through 2013–2014 despite growing compliance issues.
Mother’s violations of the DFS case plan included missed urinalysis testing and positive drug tests; she contested testing reliability.
The MDT recommended changing GC’s permanency goal to termination and adoption; GAL and State moved to adopt and terminate reuni fication efforts.
The juvenile court changed the permanency plan to adoption on June 4, 2014, and the written order issued August 19, 2014; Mother appealed.
The court held that due process requires an evidentiary hearing for permanency-plan changes to termination, but Mother failed to raise the issue below and failed to show plain error; nonetheless, the court affirmed the plan change.
The State’s burden at permanency hearings is a preponderance of the evidence; TPR requires clear and convincing evidence at a later hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is due process violated if Wyoming Rules of Evidence apply at permanency hearings changing to termination?	Mother argues Rule 1101(b)(8) should apply and allow challenge to MDT evidence.	State argues Rule 1101(b)(8) excludes evidence rules at permanency hearings; no full evidentiary hearing required.	Prospective evidentiary hearing required; plain error not shown; rule applied prospectively.
Was the change to adoption supported by the evidence?	Mother complied with the plan; positive tests were irregular and not sufficient.	State showed repeated plan violations, including missed drug tests, supporting a change.	No abuse of discretion; preponderance of the evidence supports change.
Did the court properly address the due process protections at permanency hearings overall?	Mother contends insufficient challenge to evidence at MDT reports.	State and court followed due process with a hearing structure and burdens.	Due process protections are satisfied; evidentiary hearing was not required beyond standards then.

In re HP, 93 P.3d 982 (Wy. 2004) (change of permanency to termination; appealable order)
Maria C., 94 P.3d 796 (App. 2004) (due process in permanency hearings; meaningful participation required)
In re RE, 267 P.3d 1092 (Wy. 2011) (abuse/neglect termination standard; preponderance vs clear and convincing)
In re MC, 299 P.3d 75 (Wy. 2013) (due process in permanency and sufficiency of evidence standards)
In re AGS, 337 P.3d 470 (Wy. 2014) (evidentiary issues; plain error assessment)
Verheydt v. Verheydt, 295 P.3d 1245 (Wy. 2013) (de novo standard for constitutional challenges)