Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO WDW, a minor child: JLW V. CAB

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-09-0097

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2010-01-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO WDW, a minor child: JLW V. CAB2010 WY 9224 P.3d 14Case Number: S-09-0097Decided: 01/28/2010
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO WDW, a minor 
child:

 
 
JLW,

 
 
Appellant

(Respondent),

 
 
v.

 
 
CAB,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Carbon County

The 
Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

John 
M. Burman, Director, Legal Services; Marci Day, Student Director, Legal 
Services.  Argument by Ms. 
Day.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Juan 
Leo DeHerrera, DeHerrera & Bach Law Center, PC, Rawlins, 
Wyoming.

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
JLW 
(Father) appeals the district court's order terminating his parental rights 
pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv).  He claims the district court failed to 
satisfy the social study requirements detailed in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-2-314.  He also contends there 
was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that he was an 
unfit parent.  We affirm. 

 
 
ISSUES

 
 

[¶2]        
Father 
presents the following issues:

 
 

1.    
Whether 
the District Court erroneously exercised its discretion in terminating the 
parental rights of [Father] after:

 
 

a.    
Failing 
to direct that a social study should be made upon the filing of the petition for 
termination as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-314 and rendering a judgment 
in favor of termination without having reviewed the completed home 
study.

 
 

b.    
Ordering 
a home study for the purpose of the possible adoption of WDW by his step-father 
rather than for the purpose of determining whether termination would be 
appropriate.

 
 

2.    
Whether 
the District Court erred in finding that [Mother] established that [Father] was 
unfit to have custody and control of the minor child, WDW, for the purposes of 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv), because:

 
 

a.    
[Mother] 
failed to carry the evidentiary burden of proving [Father] was unfit to have 
custody and control by clear and convincing evidence.  

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
Father 
and CAB (Mother) are the parents of WDW who was born in May 1999.  Mother filed for divorce shortly after 
the birth and a default divorce decree was entered in October 1999.  Mother was awarded sole custody of 
WDW.  Father was ordered to pay $300 
per month in child support.  The 
divorce decree did not provide Father with any visitation rights.  It did, however, specifically provide 
that Father could petition for visitation rights in the 
future.

 
 

[¶4]        
Mother 
married CB in June 2005.  CB wants 
to adopt WDW and, as an initial step in the adoption process, Mother sought to 
obtain Father's consent to the adoption.  Father refused to give consent.  Mother then filed a petition to terminate 
Father's parental rights.  Father 
contested the petition.  The 
district court appointed a Guardian ad Litem for WDW and a bench trial was held 
in September 2008.

 
 

[¶5]        
At 
the beginning of trial, Father's attorney advised the court that the social 
study mandated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-314 had not been ordered.  Father's counsel did not seek a 
continuance.  Instead, she suggested 
that the district court order the social study after trial if the court felt 
that it was necessary.  The court 
accepted the suggestion and trial proceeded as scheduled.  

 
 

[¶6]        
The 
evidence presented at trial established that Father was in jail at the time of 
WDW's birth and had been incarcerated on numerous occasions since that time. 
 At the time of trial, Father was 
serving a five to seven year sentence for aggravated burglary, a felony.  He began serving the sentence in 
2006.  Father has two other felony 
convictions and additional felony charges are currently pending in Utah.  Father has struggled with drug and 
alcohol abuse when not in prison.  
Father never voluntarily paid child support.  Support payments were garnished from his 
wages during those periods of time when Father was not in prison. 

  

[¶7]        
Father 
has never met WDW.  He has made 
sporadic attempts to establish contact.  
On occasion, he requested visitation.  Mother rebuffed those requests, claiming 
that visitation was not authorized by the divorce decree and that Father was not 
current in his child support obligations.  
Over the years, Father sent approximately 70 letters to WDW.  Most of the letters were sent while 
Father was in prison.  He has sent 
WDW two gifts.

 
 

[¶8]        
At 
the close of the evidence, the district court took the matter under advisement 
and ordered the social study.  On 
January 12, 2009, the district court entered its decision letter finding 
generally against Father and concluding that his parental rights should be 
terminated.  In the decision letter, 
the district court noted that it had not yet received the social study.  The social study was filed with the 
court on January 15, 2009.  The 
Order Terminating Parental Rights was entered on February 20, 2009.  Father filed a timely appeal.  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
Social 
Study

 
 

[¶9]        
Father's 
first issue centers around Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-314 (LexisNexis 2005) which 
states:

 
 
Upon 
the filing of a petition by anyone other than an authorized agency as defined by 
W.S. 14-2-308(a)(ii)(A), the court shall direct that a social study be made by 
the appropriate county office of public assistance and social services or by any 
authorized agency to aid the court in making a final disposition of the 
petition. The social study shall state the factual information pertaining to the 
allegations in the petition, the social history and the present situation and 
environment of the child and parent. The social study shall not be excluded as 
evidence by reason of hearsay alone. The social study shall be made available to 
any party to the action upon request.

 
 
Father 
contends that the district court did not comply with the statute.  His complaint is threefold.  First, he contends that the district 
court erred in failing to order the social study when the petition for 
termination was filed.  Second, he 
claims that the district court erred in terminating his parental rights "before 
receiving a completed social study."  
Finally, he asserts that the social study was inadequate because it did 
not contain sufficient information regarding Father's present 
situation.

 
 

[¶10]     
The 
facts relating to the social study are not in dispute.  The social study was not ordered when 
the petition for termination was filed.  
The district court and the parties were aware of that oversight prior to 
the commencement of trial.  Father, 
through counsel, suggested that the trial proceed without the social study.  The court accepted Father's suggestion 
and ordered the social study after trial.  Prior to receiving a completed social 
study, the court, by decision letter, notified counsel of its intention to 
terminate Father's parental rights.  
In footnote two of the decision letter, the court 
stated:

 
 
The 
Court has not received a completed social study at this point.  However, keeping in mind that [Father] 
is incarcerated by the Wyoming Department of Corrections and that [Mother] has 
raised [WDW] and his brother for their entire lives and has worked at the Carbon 
County Child Development Center for several years, the Court believes that the 
information contained in a completed social study will only be cumulative of the 
evidence presented at trial.  The 
Court seeks to end the delay in issuing its opinion caused by waiting on the 
social study.  Therefore, the Court 
issues its opinion here realizing that the statute mandates the social study, 
but finding its absence to be harmless.

 
 

[¶11]     
The 
social study was filed with the court on January 15, 2009.  More than a month later, on February 20, 
2009, the district court entered its Order Terminating Parental Rights.  We will first address Father's claim of 
error relating to the timing of the social study.

 
 

[¶12]     
The 
statutory language is mandatory and the social study should have been ordered 
when the petition was filed.  
Father, however, intentionally and knowingly waived any objection to the 
lack of timely compliance.1  It was Father's counsel who asked the 
court to proceed with trial:

 
 
THE 
COURT:  But in any event, we 
apparently all agree that preparation of a social study is mandatory under 
14-2-314, and it has not been done in this case.  Is that correct?

 
 
[PETITIONER'S 
COUNSEL]:  That's correct, Your 
Honor.

 
 
[GUARDIAN 
AD LITEM]:  Yes, Your 
Honor.

 
 
[RESPONDENT'S 
COUNSEL]:  And, Your Honor, . . . 
the statute requires both the appointment of a guardian ad litem and a social 
study. . . I would propose that we take evidence today, and if the Court feels 
it is necessary to [order] a social study for further proceedings that it 
reserve its judgment.

 
 
THE 
COURT:  And that is what we will 
do.

 
 
[RESPONDENT'S 
COUNSEL]:  Beyond that, I don't have 
any further comment. 

 
 

[¶13]     
Father's 
contention that his parental rights were terminated prior to the filing of the 
social study is not correct.  Father's rights were terminated on 
February 20, 2009 when the district court entered the Order Terminating Parental 
Rights.  The social study was filed 
on January 15, 2009.  Although the 
decision letter was filed prior to receipt of the social study, the decision 
letter did not terminate Father's parental rights.  "A court's decision letter or opinion 
letter, made or entered in writing, is not a judgment."  W.R.C.P. 54(a); see also Broadhead v. Broadhead, 737 P.2d 731, 
733 (Wyo. 1987).  

 
 

[¶14]     
We 
cannot ascertain from the record whether the district court reviewed the social 
study prior to entry of the termination order.  It is possible that the court reviewed 
the social study and concluded that it supported the termination decision.  It is also possible that the district 
court entered the termination order without reviewing the social study.  Under either scenario, Father has failed 
to establish prejudicial error.  
To establish prejudicial error, Father must 
show "that the outcome of his trial would have been more favorable had the error 
not occurred."  RK v. State ex rel. Natrona County Child Support 
Enforcement Dep't, 2008 WY 
1, ¶ 18, 174 P.3d 166, 171 (Wyo. 2008). 

 
 

[¶15]     
Father 
complains that the social study was inadequate because he "was never personally 
interviewed, and the study does not talk about [Father]'s present situation or 
what efforts he has made to improve his present situation since being 
incarcerated."  Father's statement 
is accurate.  Critically, however, 
he fails to identify any information that should have been included in the 
social study that was not presented to the district court during 
trial.

 
 

[¶16]     
Father 
was present at trial.  He testified 
regarding his social history, current situation, and self-improvement 
efforts.  He admitted that he had 
never met WDW and testified as to efforts he had made to establish contact.  He conceded that he is currently in 
prison and that additional felony charges are pending against him.  He admitted to past problems with drug 
and alcohol abuse but testified regarding his current sobriety.  He advised the court that he is 
attending Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings, as well as 
"Thinking for a Change" in order to be able to maintain sobriety when he is 
released from prison.  He told the 
court that he is providing GED tutoring to other inmates.  In short, he fully apprised the court of 
his social history, his relationship with WDW, and his current situation.  The district court opted to issue its 
decision letter without the benefit of the social study in order to avoid 
further delay and because the court was convinced that information contained in 
the social study would merely be cumulative of the evidence presented at 
trial.  Having reviewed the social 
study, we conclude that the district court was correct.  The information in the social study was 
cumulative and nothing in the study contradicted the trial evidence.  Father has failed to establish 
prejudicial error.

 
 
Sufficiency 
of Evidence

 
 

[¶17]     
 Father challenges the sufficiency of the 
evidence supporting termination of his parental rights.  We apply our traditional principles of 
evidentiary review when a party challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 
supporting termination.  BA v. Laramie County Dep't of Family 
Servs., 2007 WY 128, ¶ 7, 163 P.3d 844, 847 (Wyo. 2007); CDB v. DJE, 2005 WY 102, ¶ 
4, 118 P.3d 439, 440 (Wyo. 2005); BSC v. 
Natrona County Dep't of Family Servs., 2004 WY 167, ¶ 11, 102 P.3d 890, 894 
(Wyo. 2004).  We examine the 
evidence 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.  MN v. State, Dep't of Family Servs., 
2003 WY 135, ¶ 5, 78 P.3d 232, 234 (Wyo. 2003).  This Court then reviews the supporting 
evidence to ascertain if it clearly and convincingly satisfies the statutory 
elements required to support termination.  
EBH v. Hot Springs Dep't of Family 
Servs., 2001 WY 100, ¶ 14, 33 P.3d 172, 178 (Wyo. 2001).  Evidence is clear and convincing if it 
would persuade a trier of fact that the truth of the contention is highly 
probable.  LP v. Natrona County Dep't of Public 
Assistance and Social Servs., 679 P.2d 976, 982 (Wyo. 1984).  This Court may examine all of the 
properly admissible evidence in the record, but we do not reweigh the evidence. 
 Street v. Street, 2009 WY 85, ¶ 9, 211 P.3d 495, 498 (Wyo. 2009).  In applying our standard of review, we keep in mind that 
the right to associate with one's family is fundamental and strictly scrutinize 
petitions to terminate parental rights.  
RLA v. State of Wyo., Dep't of 
Family Servs., 2009 WY 109, ¶ 13, 215 P.3d 266, 268 (Wyo. 2009).  

 
 

[¶18]     
The 
district court found clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of 
Father's parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv).2  In order to prevail under Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv), a petitioner must establish, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that 1) the parent is incarcerated due to a felony conviction, and 2) 
he is unfit to have custody and control of the child.  See DKM v. RJS, 924 P.2d 985, 987 (Wyo. 
1996).  

 
 

[¶19]     
Father 
concedes that he is currently incarcerated for the commission of a felony, but 
claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove he is an unfit parent.  The term unfit is not defined in the 
termination statutes.  We have, 
however, previously recognized that "fitness 
includes the ability to meet the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of 
the child."  RLA, ¶ 14, 215 P.3d  at 269, citing 
CDB, ¶ 7, 118 P.3d  
at 441.  Whether a parent is fit to 
have custody and control of a child is a decision that must be made within the 
context of a particular case and depends upon the situation and attributes of 
the specific parent and child.  RLA, ¶ 14, 215 P.3d  at 
269.

 
 

[¶20]     
Father 
points to evidence in the record that is favorable to his position in an effort 
to challenge the district court's finding of unfitness.  He notes that the crime for which he is 
currently in prison does not, by itself, warrant a finding of unfitness.  He asserts that he made numerous 
requests of Mother to allow visitation and contends that Mother improperly 
refused those requests.  He points 
to the numerous letters he has sent over the years to WDW as evidence of his 
efforts to establish a positive relationship.  He also notes that he is currently 
living a drug- and alcohol-free lifestyle.  
He claims that he will be a better parent when released because of the 
efforts he has made to improve while in prison.  He alleges that he will be released from 
prison in 2010.  All of this 
evidence is favorable to Father's position.  Unfortunately for Father, it is not the 
only evidence that was introduced at trial.  

 
 

[¶21]     
There 
is significant evidence in the record that was unfavorable to Father's 
position.  All of the evidence 
introduced at trial was properly considered and weighed by the district 
court.  The court presented its 
analysis in a thorough and well-reasoned decision letter.  In this appeal, Father essentially asks 
this Court to reweigh that evidence.  
That is not a proper task for this Court.  We must review the evidence in the light 
most favorable to the prevailing party and determine whether that evidence 
clearly and convincingly satisfies the statutory elements required to support a 
termination of parental rights.  CDB, ¶ 4, 118 P.3d  at 440.  We conclude that it 
does.

 
 

[¶22]     
The 
district court specifically found that Father's incarceration for aggravated 
burglary does not, by itself, demonstrate unfitness.  Compare CDB, ¶¶ 7-8, 118 P.3d  at 441 
(holding that underlying crime of sexual abuse of the daughter, without more, 
demonstrated unfitness).  The court, 
however, determined that the amount of time that Father has spent in prison has 
had an impact on his fitness as a parent:  

 
 
[F]ive 
to seven years is a very long time to a child, particularly considering that 
[WDW] is already nine years old and [Father] has never met him in person. 
[Father] has already failed to provide childcare through half of [WDW]'s 
minority.  It is uncontested that at 
the earliest time that [Father] could be released from incarceration, he will 
have already missed all of [WDW's] childhood and [WDW] will be an adolescent. 

 
 

[¶23]     
While 
on occasion Father asked Mother for visitation, he never initiated legal action 
to obtain visitation rights.  
According to the district court, the failure to pursue visitation weighed 
against Father's fitness:

 
 
[T]his 
Petition Requesting Stalking Protection 
Order also demonstrates [Father]'s immature and misdirected behavior toward 
obtaining visitation with [WDW].  
Instead of seeking visitation through the proper channels, [Father] chose 
to repeatedly harass [Mother] and her family.  Therefore, the Court concludes that 
[Father]'s failure to visit [WDW] and his failure to pursue the proper channels 
for obtaining that visitation are factors demonstrating his parental 
unfitness.

 
 

[¶24]     
Father 
never voluntarily paid child support.  
Support payments that were made resulted from garnishment of his 
wages.  Although Father is currently 
sober, it is undisputed that he has struggled with drugs and alcohol throughout 
his adult life.  It is appropriate 
for a district court to consider a parent's history and pattern of behavior over 
time in determining whether rights should be terminated.  BA, ¶ 19, 163 P.3d  at 849; CL v. DFS, 2007 WY 23, ¶ 26, 151 P.3d 1102, 1108-09 (Wyo. 2007); RS v. DFS, 
2004 WY 87, ¶ 16, 94 P.3d 1025, 1029 (Wyo. 2004).  According to the district 
court:

 
 
[T]he 
Court holds serious concerns regarding [Father]'s prior use of drugs and 
alcohol.  As is often the case, 
[Father]'s alcohol abuse is a substantial factor contributing toward his 
criminal activity.  Consequently, 
the Court is also concerned about [Father]'s continued promises to his son and 
[Mother], none of which he has fulfilled.  
[Father]'s drug and alcohol use has led to his recurring incarceration, 
which in turn has prevented him from accomplishing the promises he has 
made.  As [Father] stated at trial, 
he recently "planned to do something, but then got arrested."  There is no doubt that [Father] has been 
on a repetitive, destructive pattern of behavior that has contributed to his 
failure to fulfill his responsibilities.

 
 
While 
it is appropriate to consider the history of the parent, focus should be 
maintained on [his] current status.  
[BA], ¶ 19.  After all, "[t]he statute unambiguously 
requires a finding of present unfitness."  
Id. at FN 4.  [Father] is currently living an alcohol 
and drug-free life, ostensibly due to his imprisonment.  The Court has no reason to doubt the 
sincerity with which he cares about his son, his well-written letters to both 
[Mother] and [WDW] evince such.  
However, the Court holds serious concerns regarding [Father]'s repeated 
difficulties and his limited attempts at personal improvement.  Simply put, [Father]'s extended history 
of drug and alcohol abuse and his minimal attempts to remedy his struggles are 
factors demonstrating his parental unfitness.  

 
 

[¶25]     
Although 
Father contends that he will be released from prison in 2010, the evidence 
indicates that additional felony charges are still pending against Father in 
Utah.  The district court summed up 
the evidence as follows:

 
 
From 
the evidence presented, there is no question that [Mother] has performed an 
admirable job of raising [WDW] without involvement by [Father].  [Father], however, has contributed 
little financial support, no physical support, and the consequences of his 
actions have hindered his opportunities to parent.  His past acts demonstrate his inability 
to make sound decisions and live a law-abiding life.  His only attempts at obtaining 
visitation in the past centered on harassing and threatening [Mother] and her 
family.  By the time he is released 
from his current incarceration, he will have missed the bulk of [WDW]'s 
minority.  While [Father] may mean 
well, his actions are not consistent with those of a fit 
parent.

 
 
. 
. . 

 
 
This 
Court agrees with the Wyoming Supreme Court in believing "that parents should 
not be given numerous chances after failing to adequately care for their 
children. . . . Having children is not just a right, but a right with attendant 
responsibilities."  [BA], ¶ 27.  [Father] has utterly failed to fulfill 
any of his attendant responsibilities through the first nine years of [WDW]'s 
life and his most recent criminal acts and incarceration provide no hope for 
positive change.  

 
 

[¶26]     
The 
district court's decision is supported by clear and convincing evidence.  We find no error in the district court's 
determination that Father's parental rights should be 
terminated.

 
 

[¶27]     
Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1A 
"waiver" is the intentional relinquishment of a known right that must be 
manifested in a clear and unequivocal manner.  Jensen v. Fremont Motors Cody, Inc., 
2002 WY 173, ¶ 16, 58 P.3d 322, 327 (Wyo. 2002).  Father contends that he "has an existing 
right to have a social study completed."  
Whether that right belongs to Father is questionable.  "It is further noted that the statutes 
involved, §§ 14-2-308 through 14-2-319, are for the primary benefit of the 
child."  RDW v. GJS, 716 P.2d 353, 358 (Wyo. 
1986), overruled on other grounds by 
Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 154 
(Wyo. 1998). 

2Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv) states:

 
 
                        
(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:

                                    

                                    
. . .

   

(iv)     The parent is 
incarcerated due to the conviction of a felony and a showing that the parent is 
unfit to have the custody and control of the child[.]

 
 
Mother 
also sought termination pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i).  In its decision letter the district 
court found termination under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i) inappropriate 
because Mother did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Father 
had left WDW "in the care of another."  
See SLB v. JEO, 2006 WY 74, ¶ 19, 136 P.3d 797, 802 (Wyo. 2006).