IN THE INTEREST OF: BG, minor child
S-19-0044
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING
November 14, 2019
2019 WY 116
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2019
IN THE INTEREST OF: BG, minor child,
RH,
Appellant
(Respondent),
v.
THE STATE OF WYOMING,
Appellee
(Petitioner).
Appeal from the District Court of Carbon County
The Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge
Representing Appellant:
Joshua J. Merseal and Charles F. Pelkey, Neubauer, Pelkey, Merseal & Goldfinger, LLP, Laramie, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee:
Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Misha Westby, Deputy Attorney General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney Genеral; Christina F. McCabe, Senior Assistant Attorney General.
Guardians ad Litem:
Dan S. Wilde, Deputy State Public Defender, Wyoming Guardian ad Litem Program; Lisa K. Finkey,* Finkey Law, LLC, Gillette, Wyoming.
Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.
*An Order Allowing Withdrawal оf Counsel was entered on November 13, 2019.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publicatiоn in the permanent volume.
[¶1] This case arises from an ongoing juvenile court action involving three minor children and their mother, RH (Mother). Mother argues the juvenile court lost jurisdictiоn over one of her children, BG, when BG turned 18 years old. The juvenile court held that it retained jurisdiction over BG under
ISSUE
[¶2] We address one dispositive issue:1 Did the juvenile court lose jurisdiction over BG when BG turned 18 years old?
FACTS
[¶3] In May 2016, the State initiated neglect proceedings against Mother in juvenile court, alleging that she had failed “to provide adequate care, maintenance and educational care” for her minor children, BG, DS, and AH. BG was 15 years old аt the time.
[¶4] The juvenile court placed BG, DS, and AH in the custody of the Department of Family Services (Department) and adjudicated Mother neglectful. After Mother’s repeated failure to comply with her case plan, the juvenile court found that the Department was no longer required to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family and thаt termination of Mother’s parental rights was “necessary and appropriate.” The Department began pursuing a “permanency plan of adoption/guardianshiр” for the three children. While those efforts were ongoing, BG turned 18. Without addressing this change in circumstance, the juvenile court continued to issue orders as though the Department rеtained custody over BG.
[¶5] Several months after BG turned 18, the juvenile court held an emergency review hearing because it had “come to the [State’s] attention that a hearing pursuant to Wyoming Statute
the court’s jurisdiction terminated when BG turned 18. The State and BG’s guardian ad litem argued the juvenile court retained jurisdiction over BG because
DISCUSSION
I. The juvenile court’s jurisdiction over BG terminated when she reached 18 years of age because it did not fulfill the requirements of
[¶6] “We review whether a court has jurisdiction over a case de novo.” In re L-MHB, 2018 WY 140, ¶ 6, 431 P.3d 560, 564 (Wyo. 2018) (citing Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Properties, Inc., 2018 WY 111, ¶ 28, 427 P.3d 708, 716 (Wyo. 2018)). “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which thе proceedings in question belong.” Barela v. State, 2017 WY 66, ¶ 5, 395 P.3d 665, 668 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Fuller v. State, 568 P.2d 900, 902-03 (Wyo. 1977)). “A lack of subject matter jurisdiction constitutes a fundamental defect in the proceeding which cannot be cured by waiver or consеnt.” McCallister v. State ex rel. Dep’t of Workforce Servs., Workers’ Comp. Div., 2019 WY 47, ¶ 10, 440 P.3d 1078, 1081 (Wyo. 2019); In re L-MHB, 2018 WY 140, ¶ 9, 431 P.3d at 564. “Jurisdiction is essential to the exercise of judicial power. Unless the court has jurisdiction, it lacks any аuthority to proceed, and any decision, judgment, or other order is, as a matter of law, utterly void and of no effect for any purpose.” Barela, 2017 WY 66, ¶ 5, 395 P.3d at 668 (quoting Messer v. State, 2004 WY 98, ¶ 13, 96 P.3d 12, 17 (Wyo. 2004)).
[¶7] “Subject matter jurisdiction for juvenile courts originates in constitutional and statutory law.” In re MFB, 860 P.2d 1140, 1146 (Wyo. 1993). The Wyoming Constitution authorizes the legislature to “provide for such juvenile delinquency and domestic relations courts as may bе needed[.]”
Juvenile courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Article 5, section 29 of the Wyoming Constitution delegates authority to the legislature to provide for juvenile delinquency courts that “shall have such jurisdiction as the legislature may by law provide.” Thus, juvenile courts аre the creation of the legislature and have powers only as expressly conferred by the legislature.
In re WJH, 2001 WY 54, ¶ 30, 24 P.3d 1147, 1156 (Wyo. 2001) (citations omitted). “Once the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is invоked, then the matter proceeds as a continuing and dynamic situation.” In re MFB, 860 P.2d at 1146 (quoting In re N.M., 794 P.2d 564, 566 (Wyo. 1990) (Thomas, J., concurring)). Here, the juvenile court’s jurisdiction was properly invoked—the State filed a pеtition while BG was a minor alleging that Mother had neglected her. However, “after being acquired, continuing subject matter jurisdiction require[s] adherence” to the procedurаl requirements of
[¶8] Section 14-3-431(b) states:
Unless sooner terminated by court order, all orders issued under this act shall terminate with respect to a child adjudicated neglected, when he reaches eighteen (18) years of age unless the court has ordered care or services to continue beyond that time. The court shall conduct a review hearing at least six (6) months before the child reaches eighteen (18) years of age to
determine whether care or transitional services should continue and for what period of time prior to the individual reaching the age of twenty-one (21) years.
[¶9] The State argues the juvenile court complied with
custody of BG at these hearings, the State contends, the juvenile court impliedly determined “whether care or transitional services should continue.” However, the record demonstrates that the court did not address the question of whether services should continue until well after BG’s 18th birthday.
[¶10] In In re MFB, 860 P.2d at 1149, this Court hеld the juvenile court did not lose jurisdiction by failing to hold an adjudicatory hearing within the statutorily required timeframe because the statute at issue “imposed no sanction” for failurе to abide by the requirement and “it would require an unequivocal expression from the legislature for a violation of the statute’s language to result in a lack of subject mattеr jurisdiction.” In contrast,