*1 203 correct, sumptively appellate Scarbrough, 957 P.2d 842 Hurlbut v. may properly all support a child obli examine admissible (Wyo.1998): "[Bleeause par regard in the record. Due is belong to the custodial evidence gation does not given opportunity judge trial ent, to the does not have witnesses, credibility operate bargain away." Equity cannot to assess re-weighing review does not entail policy behind the en to override this basic our support a child order. Follow forcement of disputed Findings of fact will evidence. clearly right they unless are ing reasoning, we conclude that the not be set aside support is not waived the custo clearly to obtain finding erroneous. A is erroneous when, act, inaction, inability although sup- ac there is evidence to parent's dial it, reviewing nonpayment sup port of child court on the entire quiescence to the evidence is left with the definite and firm brought within the statute port if an action is convictionthat a mistake has been commit- addition, In it is of no conse of limitations. ted. arrearage will be quence that the directly grown than rather (cita- Homes, Inc., 974 at 958 Fremont P.2d "Money paid par to the custodial children. omitted). Although recognize tions we past-due support serves to reimburse ent for evidence, dispute def- factual actually expended." the custodian for monies judge's opportunity erence to the to assess Kivett, Wash.App. Capetillo v. 85 932 credibility of the witnesses. Id. On (1997). P.2d 694 basis of a careful review of the entire record Although determination that the our Court, we cannot conclude that before this apply of laches does not to claims
doctrine clearly findings court's erro- support dispositive, we unpaid neous. father could have availed himself of doubt the Af n rmed, protection afforded the doctrine. equity is that of the basic tenets "One depend upon showing
equitable remedies hands: 'He who the claimant clean equity must with clean
comes into come Homes, Elmer,
hands"" Fremont Inc. v. (Wyo.1999)(quotingDutch 974P.2d 959 Schleicher, Wyo. v. Maid Bakeries (1942)). admit The father NG, Interest of Minor: approximately support for ted he owed child preceding adoption of his ten months The record does not show that the children. Family Services, Appellant. acknowl father made effort to support No. C-00-1. edged child debt. not have "clean hands."
father does Wyoming. Supreme Court of B. Burden of Proof Dec. Having conceded he owed child preceding support the ten months adoption, the father contends he children's persuasive credible and evidence his child
that he satisfied the remainder of obligation. court disa
support The district
greed and the father failed in his bur found proof. den of judge findings factual are not
entitled to the limited review afforded
jury findings pre- verdict. While the *2 juvenile coincidentally provided to a
subject petition? to a CHINS A. The Juvenile Court does not have authority of inherent to order State Wyoming, Department Family of Ser- pay provided vices to for services out- statutory side of B. Statutes do not authority Court Juvenile Wyoming,Department of of Fami- pay provided ly for services Services statutory frame- outside pro- though work even such services are juvenile coincidentally subject vided to a petition. to a CHINS Gay Appellant: Representing the Wood- minor frames ad litem for the General; house, Attorney Michael L. Hub- ' the issue as General; bard, Attorney Dan Deputy S. follows: General; Wilde, Attorney I. Whether the Juvenile Court has the Assistant Senior Blume, Wyoming, Attorney to order the State of Assistant and Kristen L. General. Department Family pay of Services to provided services that were John E. Representing the Minor: petition, coincident to a CHINS when the Litem, Cheyenne, Frentheway, Guardian were in interest of the the best WY; Director of the Universi- John Burman, ty Wyoming Legal Program; of Services a. Coincident to CHINS Faculty Supervisor Playton, Acting of Dona explicit has the Juvenile Court Wyoming Legal University Services of Wyo- to order the State of Hunt, Program; Di- and Loralee Student ming, Department Family of Services University Wyoming Legal rector of the act, duty responsibility Program. Services necessary [plursuant the court deems THOMAS,GOLDEN,HILL Before Wyo.Stat. § SPANGLER, KITE,JJ.; DAN alternative, b. In the the Juvenile (Ret.). acting in the best interest of the Supervision in Need of Child has Judge inherent to order the State of (Retired). Wyoming, Department Family Ser- Appellant State of pay vices to for electronic (DFS) Family was ordered provided Services to a who is supervi- in a in need of Juvenile Court subject to a CHINS Petition. (CHINS) sion case to for electronic mon- itoring provided by private compa- THE FACTS ny taken for the minor child. This May the assistant district from that affirm. order. We petition alleging filed a child, NG, minor was a child in need of ISSUES date, supervision. that same
DFS states this issue: complete a Court ordered DFS to social sum- filed, mary. petition I. Does the Juvenile Court have au- When the was NG was thority Wyoming, to order the State of probation through on Department Family provided for was Services outside private company framework when such services 14-6-408(a) (LEXIS July ing. Wyo.Stat.Ann. arraignment was scheduled for NG's However, provides part: on June signed and a DFS social worker (a) proceedings with Coincident PLAN." CASE a document entitled "CHINS alleged cerning a minor need *3 proba- plan noted that the child was on The supervision, the court has to: tion of the through the court. One (Mi) any party goals plan was that NG would
stated Order acts, any ings to duties and successfully complete monitoring electronic plan probation. The responsibilities also identified other the court deems neces- sary; ... completed. The document stated tasks to be consequences plan possible that were 14-6402(a)(xv) (LEXIS Wyo.Stat.Ann. § request either a that the DFS worker would child, "parties" defines to include "the or court dismissal of the court case further custodian, parents, guardian his the state action. any person other made a wrote appear, June the DFS worker party an order to or named the enclosing attorney, district a juvenile assistant court." confirming copy plan the that the case argues DFS that these statutes do not had been cancelled as the court date apply to it. It states that in its duties and the social worker wanted to explicitly cases are defined CHINS pursue plan attempt "in to the case an avoid pumber of other statutes and it cannot be action." The letter was filed anything to do else. We are not copy being in the case with a sent to persuaded that these other statutes were judge. presiding the an meant be exclusive statement DFS's role, summary Septem- The social was filed on purpose promote The of the law is to social recom- ber DFS worker interests of the children. best DFS and monitoring mended that electronic be discon- juvenile together work court must to that arraignment At tinued. on October task, accomplish necessary To this it end. allegations in the the child admitted agency and the court for both have petition, and the Juvenile Court discontinued flexibility somewhat more than DFS would monitoring. the electronic concede. 3, 1999, November the Juvenile Court expect legisla- It is not reasonable to monitoring found that the electronic every might that ture to foresee method provided to the minor from June example, employed to assist a For through October were reasonable nothing in there is the statutes to authorize a in the of the minor. The best interests enter into a DFS social worker court ordered DFS those services. plan with the and child and case hearing, happened in cancel a court as STANDARD OF REVIEW Yet, everyone appears instance. it diversionary program accepted cerned as The resolution of this involves being promote reasonable effort question requiring statutory of law inter child's best interests. pretation. Conclusions of law are reviewed City de novo. Council Laramie v. Kreil 14-6-484(b) Wyo.Stat.Ann. § cites DFS (Wyo.1996);Hopper 911 P.2d (LEXIS 1999) proposition that Inc., Clinic, v. All Pet Animal expenses in this case are the at issue (Wyo.1993). responsibility. government's The statute witnesses, jurors, expenses for service covers DISCUSSION examinations, physical process, mental and counsel, litem, appointed argues that there is no DFS as which order it to and other costs which would be assessed under court can court. DFS does not pay for such as monitor costs electronic '206 monitoring parties arrangement, to this and when
explain how type arrange- categories. of these an order results from this would be included ment, payment for the device is Although it has the inher- CONCLUSION necessary, ent to do so when after that, under the circumstances We conclude acquired jurisdiction, case, the Court had of this indicating monitoring no ser- took action 14-6-408(a)(if) under required, not order vices were and did elec- monitoring. for the electronic approve services nor tronic affirm the order to that effect. part as of a consent decree. When an court does not issue such (Ret.), delivered *4 order, provided by Court; GOLDEN, J., opinion filed court, order dissenting opinion. services, not DFS. require should not GOLDEN, Justice, dissenting. We juve- that have not from a resulted only respectfully I dissent. DFS should order, I, therefore, respectful- nile court responsible payment of electronic moni- ly dissent. toring when ordered required by court or case, well before the acquired jurisdiction over NG CHINS,
pursuant court had moni- and ordered only
toring device. At that time and the minor