Case Title: IN THE INTEREST OF KD

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-00-4

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE INTEREST OF KD2001 WY 6126 P.3d 1035Case Number: C-00-4Decided: 07/12/2001

April Term, A.D. 2001

                    
IN THE INTEREST OF KD, a Minor:               

MTM,

Appellant(Respondent),

v.

STATE 
OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT

OF 
FAMILY SERVICES, NATRONA

COUNTY 
OFFICE,

Appellee(Petitioner).

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County:

The 
Honorable David B. Park, Judge

Representing 
Appellant:

MTM, 
pro se.

 Representing 
Appellee:

Gay 
Woodhouse, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; and 
Sue Chatfield, Assistant Attorney General.

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, and KITE, JJ.

  

LEHMAN, 
Chief Justice.

 [¶1]      Appellant 
MTM appeals from an Order for Placement, which ordered continued physical 
custody of his minor daughter, KD, with her maternal grandparents and continued 
legal custody of KD with the Department of Family  Services (DFS).

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

FACTS

[¶3]      KD was born on 
November 27, 1987, in Clanton, Alabama, and she and her mother (KAD) 
subsequently moved to Wyoming.  On 
May 28, 1992, KD was placed into protective custody by the Casper Police 
Department because her mother had been arrested for public intoxication and 
confined in the Natrona County jail.

[¶4]      MTM contacted DFS 
in January of 1993, claiming that he was KD's biological father.  DFS informed MTM that, because he was 
not listed on KD's birth certificate, he would have to establish paternity and 
then submit to a home study before placement of KD could be made with him.  KAD signed a notarized statement 
declaring MTM as KD's biological father, but placement was denied after MTM 
failed the home study.

[¶5]      In October of 
1993, KD was placed in the physical custody of her maternal grandparents with 
legal custody being placed with DFS because KAD had been unable to refrain from 
alcohol use.  Unfortunately, on 
September 8, 1995, KAD was killed by a hit-and-run driver in 
Casper.

[¶6]      A 
multidisciplinary team, consisting of social workers, attorneys, DFS, 
court-appointed special advocates, maternal grandparents, a guardian ad 
litem, and MTM, met to devise a plan by which MTM could prepare himself for 
reunification with KD.  MTM refused 
to sign or abide by the plan.  On 
January 24, 2000, the juvenile court continued custody with DFS and the 
grandparents and ordered MTM to sign and comply with the case plan, which among 
other things required him to pay child support and to attend counseling to 
improve his parenting skills and his relationship with KD.  MTM appeals from this 
order.

DISCUSSION

[¶7]      In bringing this 
appeal, MTM has violated W.R.A.P 7.01.  
Although some allowances are made for pro se litigants, this court 
expects them to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure just as we 
require trained lawyers to do.  
Dewey Family Trust v. Mountain West Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 3 P.3d 833, 836 (Wyo. 2000); Basolo v. Gose, 994 P.2d 968, 969 (Wyo. 
2000).  MTM's failure to comply with 
W.R.A.P. 7.01 justifies such action as this court "deems appropriate, including 
but not limited to:  refusal to 
consider the offending party's contentions; assessment of costs; dismissal; and 
affirmance."  W.R.A.P. 
1.03.

[¶8]      MTM also fails to 
present a cogent argument supported by pertinent authority.  We consistently refuse to consider cases 
where the appellate brief fails to make such an argument whether the brief was 
filed by a pro se litigant or by a licensed attorney.  Basolo, 994 P.2d  at 
969.

[¶9]      Other than 
including a title page with an appropriate caption, case number, and 
identification of the party filing the brief, MTM failed to comply with the 
numerous other requirements of W.R.A.P. 7.01.  These requirements are not meaningless 
obstacles to a review by this court of a given case but rather are necessary to 
drafting an organized, thoughtful, and analytical opinion on well defined 
issues.  The absence of a cogent 
argument supported by pertinent authority is equally fatal to MTM's 
efforts.  Accordingly, we summarily 
affirm the juvenile court's order.