PRG v. State, Department of Family Services
2012 WY 100
| Wyo. | 2012Background
- Father appeals a jury-terminated parental rights action involving four of his children: KMO, DMO, CMO, and AKO.
- DFS previously substantiated neglect and safety concerns dating back to 1999, with multiple juvenile court actions and foster care placements.
- By 2009 DFS sought termination; trial occurred in 2011, with a jury terminating Father's rights to the four children.
- The district court refused Father's proposed verdict form that analyzed fitness per child and used a group form instead.
- Multiple living arrangement and safety issues, including housing size, supervision, and the children’s health and therapy needs, shaped the evidence at trial.
- The court affirmed termination, holding sufficient clear and convincing evidence and no abuse of discretion in verdict form or denial of a Rule 50(a) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by not using Father's proposed per-child verdict form. | Father contends the form denied per-child fitness findings. | DFS argues a group form was appropriate given overlapping evidence about all children. | No error; form was within discretion and not misleading. |
| Whether the evidence suffices to terminate for all four children under §14-2-309(a)(v). | Father asserts evidence ties to older neglect; argues fault not his. | DFS showed unfitness and foster-care placement for at least 15 of 22 months. | Sufficient clear and convincing evidence supported termination. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Rule 50(a) judgment as a matter of law. | Father seeks directed verdict on the sufficiency of the evidence. | Evidence supported submission to the jury and termination grounds. | No error; denial was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- TMC v. Dep't of Family Servs. (In re ARC), 258 P.3d 704 (Wy. 2011) (fitness assessment in termination context; standards of review)
- EBH v. Hot Springs Dep't of Family Servs. (In re IH), 33 P.3d 172 (Wyo. 2001) (plain-language statutory interpretation in §14-2-309(a)(v))
- AJJ v. State (In re KMJ), 242 P.3d 968 (Wy. 2010) (fitness determined at trial; past behavior relevant)
- JLW v. CAB (In re WDW), 224 P.3d 14 (Wy. 2010) (considering history and pattern of behavior in fitness determinations)
- In re AE (JD v. State), 208 P.3d 1323 (Wy. 2009) (past neglect evidence admissible in current fitness analysis)
- Pauley v. Newman, 92 P.3d 819 (Wy. 2004) (verdict form and due process considerations cited)