RB v. State, Department of Family Services, 406 P.3d 723

Child SSO was in foster care from 3 days after birth; Department sought to terminate parental rights after reunification efforts failed.
Mother’s parental rights were terminated in the Termination Case; RB was identified as biological father shortly before and after trial but did not appeal the termination order.
RB executed a relinquishment to maternal grandparents on August 1, 2015, but later (April 28, 2016) entered an appearance and objected to a foster-parents’ adoption petition.
Foster parents moved to strike RB’s appearance and objection, arguing his parental rights had been terminated and he therefore lacked standing; the district court granted the motion and entered a final decree of adoption.
RB argued he had not been properly served in the Termination Case (service by publication on an “unknown father”) and thus the termination order did not apply to him; the court treated this as an improper collateral attack and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RB can challenge the adoption/appear in adoption proceedings	RB: Termination order is invalid as he was not properly served and became a known/putative father before entry of the order, so he has standing to object	Dept. & foster parents: RB’s rights were terminated in the Termination Case; he may not collaterally attack that order in the Adoption Case and thus lacks standing	Court: RB’s attack is an improper collateral attack; record shows no facial lack of jurisdiction; RB’s parental rights were terminated and he lacks standing to participate in the adoption

In re SSO, 2015 WY 124, 357 P.3d 754 (affirming termination of mother’s parental rights)
In Interest of SO, 2016 WY 99, 382 P.3d 51 (background on juvenile placement disputes involving SSO)
Travis v. Estate of Travis, 334 P.2d 508 (Wyo. 1959) (defining and limiting collateral attacks where service is asserted defective)
In re Estate & Guardianship of Andrews, 39 P.3d 1021 (Wyo. 2002) (collateral-attack standard; jurisdictional defects must appear on the record)
In re JW, 226 P.3d 873 (Wyo. 2010) (standing in parental-rights context; distinction between threatened termination and terminated rights)
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1983) (due process principles distinguishing mere biological link from parental relationship)