Case Title: In the Matter of the Adoption of RMS

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-10-0209

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2011-05-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF RMS, Minor child: EOS v. JLS and RS2011 WY 78Case Number: No. S-10-0209Decided: 05/05/2011NOTICE: 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 correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
 

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF RMS, Minor child:EOS,Appellant 
(Respondent),v.JLS and RS,Appellees 
(Petitioners).

 
 
 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Tamara 
K. Schroeder of Chapman Valdez, Casper, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellees:

Stacy 
E. Casper of Casper Law Office, LLC, Casper, Wyoming.

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

 
 
KITE, 
Chief Justice.

            

[¶1]      EOS, biological 
mother (Mother), appeals from the order allowing JLS's and RS's (Father and 
Stepmother) petition to adopt minor child, RMS, to proceed without Mother's 
consent because she did not pay child support for a year before the petition was 
filed.  She claims there was 
insufficient proof that her failure to pay child support was willful.   

 
 
[¶2]      We affirm. 

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶3]      Mother 
presents the following issue on appeal:

 
 

1.    
The 
District Court abused its discretion by allowing the petition for adoption to 
proceed without the consent of the Appellant (Respondent).  The evidence was insufficient to support 
a finding that the Appellant had willfully failed to pay child support.  

 
 
Although 
phrased differently, Father and Stepmother essentially present the same 
issue.

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      Mother and Father 
are the biological parents of RMS.  
The parents divorced in 2006, and were initially awarded joint custody of 
the child.  In 2008, the district 
court issued a modification order granting Father primary custody of RMS and 
requiring  Mother to pay $250 per 
month in child support.  Later that 
year, Father married Stepmother.  
Mother made one partial child support payment in April 2008, but 
thereafter did not pay any child support.    

 
 
[¶5]      On March 2, 2010, 
Father and Stepmother filed a petition to adopt RMS.  They asserted that the adoption should 
be granted without Mother's consent under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-22-110(a)(iv) 
(LexisNexis 2009) because she had willfully failed to contribute to the support 
of RMS for one year immediately prior to filing the adoption petition.  At the time the petition was filed, 
Mother was over $5,000 in arrears on her child support obligation.   

 
 

[¶6]      Mother conceded 
that she had not paid child support and she did not bring her support obligation 
current after the petition was filed.  
She asserted, however, that her failure to pay support was not willful 
because she was unemployed and did not have the ability to pay.  The district court held a hearing and 
ruled that Father and Stepmother had established by clear and convincing 
evidence that Mother's failure to support the child was willful and the adoption 
could proceed without her consent.  
Mother appealed.       

 
 
 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶7]      Mother challenges 
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the district court's decision.  Courts have the authority and discretion 
to grant adoptions without parental consent "provided all the statutory elements 
are satisfied."  TF v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 
118, ¶ 10, 120 P.3d 992, 998 (Wyo. 2006).  
We review the district court's decision for abuse of discretion.  MJH v. AV, 2006 WY 89, ¶ 13, 138 P.3d 683, 686 (Wyo. 2006).  "In 
determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is 
whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did.'"  GWJ v. MH, 930 P.2d 371, 377-78 (Wyo. 
1996), quoting ALT v. DWD, 640 P.2d 73, 76 (Wyo. 1982).    

 
 
[¶8]      We apply our 
traditional principles of evidentiary review when a party challenges the 
sufficiency of the evidence supporting an adoption without consent.  On appeal, the evidence is examined in 
the light most favorable to the party prevailing below, assuming all favorable 
evidence to be true while discounting conflicting evidence presented by the 
unsuccessful party.  CJ v. SA, 2006 WY 49, ¶ 5, 132 P.3d 196, 
199 (Wyo. 2006).  

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶9]      Father and 
Stepmother petitioned for adoption under § 1-22-110(a)(iv), which states in 
pertinent part:

 
 
(a) 
[T]he adoption of a child may be ordered without the written consent of a parent 
. . . if the court finds that  . . . 
the nonconsenting parent or parents have:

. 
. . .

     (iv) Willfully failed 
to contribute to the support of the child for a period of one (1) year 
immediately prior to the filing of the petition to adopt and has failed to bring 
the support obligation current within sixty (60) days after service of the 
petition to adopt[.]

 
 
[¶10]   A district court's determination 
that a parent's consent for an adoption is not required effectively terminates 
that parent's parental rights.  PAA v. Doe, 702 P.2d 1259, 1264 (Wyo. 
1985); SLH v. CST, 778 P.2d 124, 126 
(Wyo. 1989).  The right to associate 
with one's family is fundamental; consequently, courts strictly scrutinize 
petitions to terminate a parent's rights to his or her children.  CL 
v. Wyo. Dep't of Family Servs., 2007 WY 23, ¶ 9, 151 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Wyo. 
2007).  The petitioners have the 
obligation to establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination and 
adoption is appropriate.  SLJ v. 
Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 3, ¶ 19, 104 P.3d 74, 79-80 (Wyo. 2005). 
 "Clear and convincing evidence is 
that kind of proof that would persuade a trier of fact that the truth of the 
contention is highly probable.'"  Id., quoting MN v. Dep't of 
Family Servs., 2003 WY 135, ¶ 5, 78 P.3d 232, 234 (Wyo. 
2003).

 
 
[¶11]   The record does not contain a 
transcript of the hearing; however, the district court approved, pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 3.03, Mother's statement of the evidence as amended by Father's and 
Stepmother's submission.  The 
evidence established:

·         
Mother 
was ordered to pay $250 per month in child support beginning April 1, 
2008.

·         
She 
paid only one payment of $170 in April, 2008, and at the time of the hearing, 
she was $6,330 in arrears.

·         
Mother 
quit her job at a daycare shortly after being ordered to pay child 
support.

·         
Although 
Mother had employment experience at the daycare and as a cashier, housekeeper 
and nursing assistant, she had been unemployed since she quit the daycare job, 
except for the babysitting described below.

·         
Mother 
had no physical or mental disabilities which prevented her from working.  

·         
Mother 
did not have a high school education and had enrolled in a GED program, but 
later quit it.  

·         
Mother 
lived with her parents who provided all of her clothing and food and purchased 
cigarettes for her.

·         
Mother 
did not petition for modification of her child support obligation. 

·         
Mother 
testified that she had applied for numerous jobs, but had not been offered 
one.  She also had not pursued any 
means of self employment, such as daycare provider or lawn mowing, to earn a 
living.  

·         
Mother 
had not registered for any employment services.  

·         
Mother 
received $100 for babysitting for her cousin between April 2008 and January 
2009.  She did not use any of that 
money to pay her child support.  

·         
Mother 
testified that she was not deliberately remaining unemployed and she wanted to 
pay her child support, but did not have the means to do 
so.

 
 
Based 
upon these facts, the district court concluded that Father and Stepmother had 
proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had willfully failed to 
support her child.    

 
 
[¶12]   Mother concedes that she failed to 
pay her court-ordered child support.  
She claims, however, that the district court erred by concluding that her 
non-payment of child support was willful.  
Mother asserts, "[n]othing worse has been proven about [her] than that 
she is poor and uneducated."  As 
used in the adoption statute, "willfully" means "intentionally, knowingly, 
purposely, voluntarily, consciously, deliberately, and without justifiable 
excuse, as distinguished from carelessly, inadvertently, accidentally, 
negligently, heedlessly or thoughtlessly.'"  MVC v. MB, 982 P.2d 1246, 1249 (Wyo. 
1999), quoting Matter of Adoption of CJH, 
778 P.2d 124 (Wyo. 1989).   

 
 
[¶13]   Mother claims that her failure to 
pay child support was not willful because she was unemployed and did not have 
the ability to pay.  Relying on TOC v. 
TND, 2002 WY 76, 46 P.3d 863 (Wyo. 
2002), she asserts that simple 
proof of her failure to pay is insufficient as a matter of law to justify 
terminating parental rights.  That 
decision stated:

 
 
Clearly, 
by inclusion of the modifying term "willfully" the statute1 draws a distinction, as it must, 
between the parent who though financially able to pay his court-ordered child 
support is unwilling to do so, and the parent who though willing to pay his 
court-ordered child support is financially unable to do so. "A natural parent's 
failure to support his or her child does not obviate the necessity of the 
parent's consent to the child's adoption, where the parent's financial condition 
is such that he or she is unable to support the child." 2 Am.Jur.2d 
Adoption § 88 (1994).

 
 

Id., 
¶ 
27, 46 P.3d  at 873 (some citations omitted and footnote added).  

 
 
[¶14]   Mother gives an overly broad 
interpretation to TOC.  Although we have stated that a 
parent's inability or lack of means to pay may refute an allegation of willful 
failure to pay child support, that does not mean a parent's unemployment, and 
resulting inability to pay child support, is always excusable.  A parent has the responsibility to pay 
child support in accordance with his or her financial ability.  MJH, ¶ 17, 138 P.3d  at 687; TOC, ¶ 36, 46 P.3d  at 875.  In determining the willfulness of the 
parent's failure to pay, the "courts should look at whether the parent has 
demonstrated, through whatever financial means available to him, that the parent 
has not forgotten his statutory obligation to his child."  TOC, ¶ 36, 46 P.3d  at 875. 
Willfulness is rarely shown directly and there is often conflicting evidence on 
the element.  Consequently, it is 
"within the district court's province to weigh the evidence and judge 
credibility of the witnesses."  CJ, ¶ 18, 132 P.3d  at 203.  

 
 
[¶15]   The Tennessee Court of Appeals 
offers some guidance on how disputed evidence may be weighed in such cases. 
 In In re Pauline M., 2010 WL 4515062 (Tenn. 
Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010), the father had the innate ability to be employed, yet 
he chose to either remain unemployed or accept jobs below his employment 
potential.  In addition, he was 
discharged from his last employment for cause because he was observed sleeping 
on the job.  Id. at 5.  Although he did earn modest amounts of 
money during the relevant period of time, his child support payments were much 
less than his court ordered obligation.  
The court concluded that the record included clear and convincing 
evidence that he abandoned his children by willfully failing to support 
them.  Id. at 6.  

 
 
[¶16]   In the instant case, the evidence 
established that Mother worked at a daycare until shortly after the child 
support order was entered, at which time she voluntarily ended her employment, 
and hence voluntarily terminated her means of providing support.  Although she testified that she applied 
for jobs after that, without success, she did not take other steps to improve 
her prospects of becoming employed such as registering with an employment 
service or finishing the GED program to enhance her education.  In addition, when Mother secured a job 
babysitting for her cousin and was paid for those efforts, she did not pay any 
of that money toward her child support obligation, despite the fact that her 
parents were paying for her living expenses.  Although she testified that she did not 
voluntarily remain unemployed to avoid her child support obligation, the 
district court weighed the evidence and concluded she acted willfully. 

 
 
[¶17]   The district court's conclusion 
that Mother acted "intentionally, knowingly, purposely, voluntarily, 
consciously, deliberately, and without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from 
carelessly, inadvertently, accidentally, negligently, heedlessly or 
thoughtlessly'" when she did not pay child support was supported by the 
evidence.  MVC, 982 P.2d  at 1249, quoting CJH, 778 P.2d 124.   
Contrary to her assertion, the record does not establish that she was 
being punished simply for being poor and uneducated.  The evidence shows that Mother did not 
take the reasonable or logical steps necessary to become employed and support 
her child.  In other words, she 
failed to demonstrate that, through whatever financial means were available to 
her, she had not forgotten her legal obligation to support her child.  See TOC, ¶ 36, 46 P.3d  at 875.  The district court did not abuse its 
discretion by concluding there was clear and convincing evidence that Mother 
willfully failed to support her child. 

 
 
[¶18]   Affirmed.  

 
 
 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1TOC 
was 
discussing a different provision of § 1-22-110(a).  Subsection (ix) provides for adoption 
without parental consent if the parent has willfully failed to pay at least 70% 
of support for a period of at least two years.  Section 1-22-110(a)(ix).  The analysis is, however, relevant in 
interpreting § 1-22-110(a)(iv).  See, e.g., CJ v. SA, 2006 WY 49, ¶ 8, 132 P.3d 196, 
200 (Wyo. 2006) ("The willfulness requirement must be satisfied in order to 
grant an adoption under either subsection (ix) or (iv).").