Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: ATE, KOE, ETE, ME, FDE, Minor Children, STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES V. TWE, III

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-09-0123

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-12-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO:  ATE, KOE, ETE, ME, FDE, Minor Children, STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES V. TWE, III2009 WY 155222 P.3d 142Case Number: S-09-0123Decided: 12/30/2009
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO:  ATE, KOE, ETE, ME, FDE, Minor 
Children,

 
 
STATE 
OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
TWE, 
III,

 
 
Appellee

(Respondent).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County

The 
Honorable John R. Perry, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; 
Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Ms. 
Kucera.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Kenneth 
Bert DeCock, Plains Law Offices, LLP, Gillette, 
Wyoming.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 

BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
The 
district court denied a petition by the Wyoming Department of Family Services to 
terminate Father's parental rights.  
DFS appeals that decision.  
We will affirm.  

 
 

ISSUES

 
 

[¶2]        
The 
Department states two issues for our review:

 
 
            
1.         
Whether the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, presented 
clear and convincing evidence to show reasonable efforts were made to 
rehabilitate the family, and such efforts were unsuccessful or refused by the 
Father, and the children's health and safety would be jeopardized by return to 
the Father, including the mental health of the minor 
children.

 
 
            
2.         
Whether the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, presented 
clear and convincing evidence to show that the Father was unfit to have the care 
and custody of the minor children.

 
 

[¶3]        
As 
an additional issue, Father asks us to consider whether the case has become 
moot.  

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶4]        
In 
early 2005, DFS received reports of a family living in an extremely dirty home, 
and of a child from that home with significant and ongoing dental problems.  In response to the reports, the social 
worker visited the home, accompanied by a detective from the local police 
department.  Father and Mother lived 
in the home with their five children, ranging in age from approximately nine and 
a half years to six months.  The 
home was "in somewhat disarray," with food and dirt on the kitchen floor, debris 
and toys scattered throughout the house, and dirty bathroom fixtures.  Safety concerns included broken and 
missing light switch covers, and a toilet and bathtub that needed repair.  The social worker described the children 
as dirty and "unkept," but said that they appeared happy and relatively healthy, 
except for the one child with dental problems.  

 
 

[¶5]        
On 
several occasions over the next two months, the DFS social worker counseled 
Mother on various community services available to her.  The social worker met with Father only 
occasionally because of his work.  
The social worker observed no positive changes in the family's 
situation.  She also became 
increasingly concerned about the children's behavioral problems at school, about 
them not having proper clothing for cold weather, and about the family not 
having enough food in the home.  

 
 

[¶6]        
In 
May of 2005, DFS filed charges of child neglect against Father and Mother.  After an initial hearing before the 
juvenile court, the children were taken into custody by DFS and placed in foster 
care.  In July of 2005, Father and 
Mother admitted to the allegations of neglect and, pursuant to court order, the 
children remained in the custody of DFS.  

 
 

[¶7]        
In 
April of 2007, nearly two years after taking custody of the children, DFS filed 
a petition to terminate Father's parental rights.  Because pertinent details will be 
reviewed in the discussion below, we provide here only an overview of that two 
year period.  During the summer of 
2005, a DFS case worker began working with Father and Mother with the goal of 
reuniting the family.  Father and 
Mother decided to separate, however, and moved out of the home into smaller, 
separate places.  Neither had enough 
room to take back all five children or the financial resources to support them 
all, so the DFS case worker considered a plan for three of the children to be 
returned to Mother and two to Father.  
That plan was short-lived because, at some time not specified in the 
record, Mother left the State of Wyoming.  
She had only minimal contact with the children and DFS after that, and 
her parental rights were eventually terminated.  Mother did not appeal, and her parental 
rights are not at issue.

 
 

[¶8]        
Father's 
case was handled by a series of case workers, five in total, some lasting only a 
few months.  Testimony at trial 
suggests that Father got along much better with some of the case workers than he 
did with others, and that his hopes for reuniting his family waxed and waned 
accordingly.  A major source of 
friction between Father and the case workers was his continuing use of 
marijuana.  At the request of DFS, 
Father submitted to a significant number of urinalysis tests, and all or nearly 
all of them were positive for marijuana.  
Father was cited twice for criminal contempt by the juvenile court.  Both instances related to his use of 
marijuana.  DFS refused to allow 
Father visitation with his children if his urinalysis results were positive, and 
as a result, Father had no contact with the children for substantial periods of 
time.  In addition, Father's efforts 
to comply with other requirements established by DFS were sporadic at best.  He attended only the first of fifteen 
required parenting classes.  He did 
not obtain a mental health evaluation.  
He obtained a substance abuse evaluation, but did not participate in any 
of the required rehabilitation treatments.  

 
 

[¶9]        
In 
January of 2009, the district court held a three-day bench trial on the petition 
to terminate Father's parental rights.  
At that time, the children remained in foster care, and DFS had developed 
plans to place them in an adoptive home.  
Father opposed the petition.  
In March of 2009, the district court entered its order denying the 
petition.  DFS has appealed that 
decision, bringing the case to us for review.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 

[¶10]     
The 
case for termination of  parental 
 rights must  be made by

 
 
clear 
and convincing evidence. . . .  
Because association with one's immediate family is a fundamental liberty 
interest, application of the "clear and convincing" standard to evidence 
supporting termination becomes the subject of strict scrutiny at the appellate 
level.  Exacting though such 
scrutiny may be, we undertake examination of the evidence in a light most 
favorable to the party prevailing below, assuming all favorable evidence to be 
true while discounting conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful 
party.

 
 

DKM 
v. RJS, 
924 P.2d 985, 987 (Wyo. 1996) (internal citations omitted).  We have applied this standard of review 
in a large number of cases, including recently, JD and SE v. State of Wyoming, Dept. of 
Family Services, 2009 WY 78, ¶ 11, 208 P.3d 1323, 1326 (Wyo. 2009). 

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶11]     
Because 
it is potentially dispositive, we turn first to Father's argument that the case 
has become moot.  He bases this 
argument on an assertion that in August of 2009, during the pendency of this 
appeal, a hearing was held in the juvenile matter, and Father's children were 
placed in the legal and physical custody of DFS for placement with Father.  He supports this assertion with the 
affidavit of his counsel, which is attached to his brief on appeal.  DFS contends that we cannot consider the 
supporting affidavit because it is not properly part of the record on 
review.  We agree with 
DFS.

 
 
We 
have consistently ruled that an appellant bears the burden of bringing to the 
reviewing court a sufficient record on which to base its decision, and he cannot 
supplement the appellate record by attaching documents to his brief.  The rules of appellate procedure provide 
a basis for supplementing the official record, and we will not condone a party's 
failure to utilize the rules by considering documents which are simply attached 
to a brief.

 
 

Roeschlein 
v. State, 
2007 WY 156, ¶ 28, 168 P.3d 468, 476 (Wyo. 2007) (internal citations and 
punctuation omitted).  Because the 
record contains no proper support for Father's assertion, we need not consider 
it further.  Even if we did consider 
it, we would be unlikely to accept Father's argument.  A 
case is moot "when a decision can have no practical effect."  SNK v. State of Wyoming, Dept. of Family 
Services, 2003 WY 141, ¶ 18, 78 P.3d 1032, 1038 (Wyo. 2003).  This case is not moot because, as DFS 
contends, our decision can have a practical impact on DFS's subsequent actions, 
Father's parental rights, and the children's futures.

 
 

[¶12]     
DFS 
petitioned to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to two statutory 
subsections.  Each subsection sets 
forth a separate and independent basis for termination, and DFS may prevail on a 
petition to terminate parental rights if it proves the elements listed in any 
one of the subsections.  JD, 
¶ 12, 208 P.3d  at 1327.  To 
determine whether DFS proved the elements of either statutory subsection, we 
will consider each of the two subsections separately and in turn.  

 
 

[¶13]     
Pursuant 
to the first pertinent statutory subsection:  

 
 
(a)       The 
parent-child legal relationship may be terminated if any one (1) or more of 
the following facts is established by clear and convincing evidence: . . . 

 
 
(iii)       The child 
has been abused or neglected by the parent and reasonable efforts by an 
authorized agency or mental health professional have been unsuccessful in 
rehabilitating the family or the family has refused rehabilitative treatment, 
and it is shown that the child's health and safety would be seriously 
jeopardized by remaining with or returning to the 
parent[.]

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2009).  Father admitted that his five children 
had been neglected before they were removed from his home.  He denied that DFS had made reasonable 
efforts toward rehabilitating the family, and further denied that he had refused 
rehabilitative treatment.  He also 
asserted that the children's health and safety would not be jeopardized if they 
were returned to him.

 
 

[¶14]     
Evidence 
presented by DFS, and essentially undisputed, indicated that the agency had 
offered Father and his children a number of rehabilitative services, including 
educational services, counseling, medical care, foster care, parenting classes, 
transportation, financial guidance and resources, and visitation.  Evidence further indicated that Father 
largely failed to take advantage of these services.  For example, Father attended only one of 
the fifteen required parenting classes.  
He obtained a substance abuse evaluation, but never began the required 
treatment program.  During some 
substantial periods of time, his visitation with the children was minimal or 
non-existent.  As noted above, 
Father's urinalysis tests were consistently positive for marijuana.  This evidence, considered alone, would 
suggest that DFS made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the family, and that 
Father refused rehabilitative treatment.

 
 

[¶15]     
But 
there is more to the story, and given the applicable standard of review, we are 
bound to consider the evidence in a light most favorable to Father.  When the first case worker handled 
Father's case, Father visited the children about once a week, and the case 
worker described the visits as "going fine . . . going well."  After Father and Mother separated, he 
moved into a different home, and this DFS case worker visited to evaluate 
whether the children could live there.  She described the home as small but 
clean, and said she had no concerns about the children living there.  By September of 2005, Father believed 
that the children, or some of them, would be returned to him soon. 

 
 

[¶16]     
  Near the end of September, however, 
the first case worker took maternity leave, and a different case worker was 
assigned to Father's case.  Almost 
immediately, the new case worker informed Father that the children would not be 
returned to him.  Father said that 
he and the second case worker "bumped heads" over this, and to avoid conflict, 
Father broke off or reduced contact with her.  Even so, Father continued to have some 
visitation with the children, and in May of 2006, the second case worker 
reported that the visits were going well, and observed that the children 
appeared "well bonded and secure" with Father.

 
 

[¶17]     
Although 
the record is somewhat vague about why, Father was ordered to submit to a 
urinalysis in December of 2005.  The 
test was positive for marijuana.  
Father submitted to numerous urinalysis tests over the next few months, 
and all or nearly all of them were positive for marijuana.  At some point, DFS told Father that he 
could not have visitation with the children if he tested positive.  As the district court noted, this 
condition was not consistent with the court's previous orders regarding the 
family.  Those orders specified that 
Father could be denied visitation if DFS had "reasonable cause to believe 
[Father was] under the influence" of alcohol or a controlled substance.  Evidence at trial indicated that a 
positive urinalysis does not necessarily indicate that the person is currently 
under the influence because "it takes too long for cannabis, THC, to get through 
your system."  Nevertheless, DFS 
denied Father visitation with his children if he had a positive 
urinalysis.

 
 

[¶18]     
In 
June of 2006, a third case worker was assigned to Father's case.  In February of 2007, a fourth case 
worker was assigned to Father's case.  
Both case workers continued to deny Father visitation if he had positive 
urinalysis results, and Father's visits with his children became very 
infrequent.  Father's positive tests 
also resulted in other difficulties.  
For example, Father was required to have the children with him during 
parenting classes.  He attended the 
first parenting class with the children, but when DFS denied him visitation 
because of positive urinalysis results, he was not allowed to attend the rest of 
the parenting classes.  In November 
of 2007, based on a stipulation between the guardian ad litem and the county 
attorney, the district court ordered that Father could have visitation even if 
he had positive urinalysis results.  
When Father went for a visit with the children, he was told, or led to 
believe, that he would be cited for possession of marijuana if he had a positive 
urinalysis.  This further 
discouraged Father from pursuing visitation.

 
 

[¶19]     
The 
district court, after hearing and considering the evidence, issued a decision 
letter that is worth quoting here at some length.  The district court left no doubt about 
its condemnation of Father's drug use:  

 
 
To 
be clear, the court in no way condones [Father's] use of marijuana.  To the contrary, the court finds 
[Father's] conduct in this regard reprehensible, self-centered, and devoid of 
any respect for the laws of this state regarding marijuana.  However his conduct in this regard 
should not be confused with whether consistent, reasonable efforts were made by 
the government.

 
 
The 
district court was equally clear about its evaluation of DFS's efforts to 
rehabilitate the family:

 
 
The 
court cannot conclude that reasonable efforts were made to rehabilitate the 
family.  Certainly, it appears DFS 
spent a considerable amount of time on this case and had a large number of 
contacts with the family members.  
On the other hand, [Father's] testimony, taken together with . . .  documents in the juvenile file, leads 
this court to question the approach taken by DFS in dealing with 
[Father].

 
 
Both 
the Temporary Order and the Order of Disposition allowed DFS discretion 
regarding visits between the children and the parents and stated that there were 
to be no visits if DFS workers had reasonable cause to believe the parents were 
under the influence.  [Eventually,] 
DFS workers required [Father] to submit to testing.  It is with some reluctance that the 
court admits that it agrees with [Father]:  
the initial reason for DFS involvement with this family was not related 
to [Father's] marijuana use.  It was 
due to the continued failure of the parents to provide sanitary living 
conditions and provide prompt and appropriate medical/dental care for the 
children. . . .

 
 
So, 
what began as a case about ensuring [that the] children had a clean, safe 
environment with appropriate medical, dental and other care, became a case about 
whether [Father] wanted to be with his children enough to stop using 
marijuana.  The court understands 
[Father's] frustration with the situation.  
At one point, he was required to attend a parenting class.  He was not allowed admission to the 
parenting class because he was supposed to bring the children with him.  But, he was not allowed to have the 
children with him because he had had a positive [urinalysis] for marijuana.  DFS then uses this non-compliance with 
requirements to support the petition to terminate parental 
rights.

 
 
In 
addition, the sheer number of social workers assigned to [Father's] case would 
be, at a minimum, confusing and distressing to anyone.  And, in fact, in this case it appears 
that the directives and messages from social worker to social worker varied in 
degrees from approval to near hostility.  
When one factors in the apparent discrepancies in management of the cases 
between those workers, it is easy to grasp how [Father] became frustrated with 
the government's handling of efforts to reunify parent and children. . . 
.

 
 
Given 
the forgoing, the court is unable to conclude that reasonable efforts were 
undertaken by DFS to rehabilitate this parent with respect to the situation that 
brought the family to the attention of the State.  

 
 
(Internal 
footnotes omitted.)

 
 

[¶20]     
Termination 
of parental rights under this statutory subsection also requires clear and 
convincing evidence that "the child's health and safety would be seriously 
jeopardized by remaining with or returning to the parent."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii).  As the district court wrote, the State 
"did not present evidence regarding the cleanliness or safety of [Father's] 
current living situation."  In 
contrast, Father presented evidence that he was living with his mother, his 
girlfriend, their child, and her four other children, in a home that was 
reasonably large, clean, and safe for children.  Testimony from Father's girlfriend 
portrayed him as a good father figure for her five children, and the 
girlfriend's mother agreed.  Another 
witness, a single parent, testified that her son had exhibited behavioral 
problems, that Father had volunteered to spend time with him, and that Father 
had been successful in helping her son.

 
 

[¶21]     
The 
district court's evaluation of this evidence led it to conclude that the State 
had not proven with clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to 
Father would be a risk to their health or safety.  The district court explained as 
follows:

 
 
The 
court has no doubt that [Father] continues to use marijuana, but the State did 
not demonstrate that that fact would result in jeopardy to the health and safety 
of the . . . children.  No 
evidence of any kind was provided indicating that the parenting problems were 
the result of his drug use.  While 
the court has concern that [Father] will be able to successfully provide for 
them all, having a large number of children does not necessarily jeopardize 
[the] health and safety of those children.  
And, certainly, the court may not simply assume that having ten children 
in a household creates a per se risk 
to the health and safety [of] all, or any, of the 
children.

 
 

[¶22]     
In 
a case involving the termination of parental rights, "the determination of the 
ultimate issues . . . require[s] a review of subjective, qualitative 
factors."  CL 
v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 
2007 WY 23, ¶ 30, 151 P.3d 1102, 1109 (Wyo. 2007).  The 
district court is in "the best position to make those difficult factual 
determinations" because the district court judge "actually sat in the courtroom 
and observed the demeanor of the witnesses."  Id.  We therefore defer to the district 
court's findings of fact.  In 
Father's case, there is no dispute that the district court correctly interpreted 
and applied Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii), and our review of the 
record reveals sufficient evidence to support its findings of fact.  We will not disturb the district court's 
decision under this statutory subsection.

 
 

[¶23]     
We 
turn next to the second statutory subsection under which DFS sought termination 
of Father's parental rights.  Pursuant to this provision: 

 
 
(a)       The 
parent-child legal relationship may be terminated if any one (1) or more of 
the following facts is established by clear and convincing evidence: . . . 

 
 
            
(v)        The 
child has been in foster care under the responsibility of the state of Wyoming 
for fifteen (15) of the most recent twenty-two (22) months, and a showing that 
the parent is unfit to have custody and control of the 
child[.]

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v).  

 
 

[¶24]     
There 
is no dispute that Father's children were in foster care for more than the 
required fifteen months.  As stated 
above, there was evidence of Father's use of marijuana, but DFS did not provide 
evidence to connect his marijuana use with his unfitness as a parent.  As also stated above, there was 
testimony that Father was a good father figure to his girlfriend's children 
despite his marijuana use.  In 
addition, there was testimony that Father never used marijuana in the presence 
of the children.  The district 
court's decision letter summarized the evidence and explained its decision as 
follows:   

 
 
[T]he 
court cannot make the finding that [Father] is unfit to have custody and control 
of the children.  Even admitting 
that he would require some level of state assistance to care for all ten 
children does not make him unfit.  
Many families live in poverty and require state assistance to provide for 
the necessities of life.  This does 
not make the parents unfit.  It 
defines them as being poor and under our laws being poor is not per se an element of neglect.  Drug use certainly may cause a parent to be unfit [but the] 
evidence in this case does not support such a finding by the court under the 
clear and convincing evidence standard.

 
 
(Emphasis 
in original.)

 
 

[¶25]     
Under 
the applicable standard of review, the district court's decision is subject to 
strict scrutiny, and we defer to the district court's findings if they are 
supported by evidence in the record.  
In this case, the district court correctly applied the law, and there is 
evidence in the record sufficient to support its findings of fact.  Under this standard of review, we affirm 
the district court's decision.