Case Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO L.A., a minor child: R.L.A. V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-08-0274

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2009-09-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO L.A., a minor child: R.L.A. V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2009 WY 109Case Number: S-08-0274Decided: 09/02/2009NOTICE:  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 typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO L.A., a minor child: 
R.L.A.Appellant(Respondent),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY 
SERVICES,Appellee(Petitioner).

 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Sweetwater County

The 
Honorable Nena R. James, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

John 
M. Burman, Faculty Supervisor, University of Wyoming Legal Services Program; 
Aaron S. Hockman, Student Intern; and Matthew Landers, Student Intern.  Argument by Mr. 
Hockman.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

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

 
 

Guardian 
Ad Litem:

            
Donald K. Slaughter, Rock Springs, Wyoming.  No appearance.

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

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]      RLA (Father) 
appeals from the district court's order terminating his parental rights to his 
son, LA (Child), pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv) (LexisNexis 2009) 
because he was incarcerated on a felony conviction and was unfit to have custody 
and control of Child.  Father claims 
the Department of Family Services (DFS) did not present sufficient evidence to 
establish he was unfit.  

        

[¶2]      We affirm. 

 
 
ISSUE

 
 
[¶3]      The 
dispositive issue in this case is whether the district court properly concluded 
DFS presented clear and convincing evidence that Father was unfit to have care 
and custody of Child.  

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      Child was 
born November 25, 2006, to KW (Mother) and Father.  Because Child tested positive for 
methamphetamine at birth, DFS took him into protective custody.  The parents lived together and DFS 
determined it would not be appropriate to place Child with Father because of the 
presence of methamphetamine in the household.  Mother subsequently relinquished her 
parental rights to Child.     

 
 
[¶5]      DFS prepared a 
case plan, dated January 19, 2007, which listed the permanency goal as family 
reunification and required Father to provide a copy of his drug and alcohol 
evaluation and comply with its recommendations; complete a parenting class; and 
attend regular visitation with the Child after having clean urinalyses 
(UAs).  Father did well on the plan 
for the first few weeks, completing a parenting class and regularly attending 
visitation after submitting clean UAs.  
However, in February 2007, Father admitted to using methamphetamine and 
"flushing," i.e., consuming large amounts of liquid to obtain clean UAs.  Because at the time of his admission 
Father was on probation for a prior burglary, he was incarcerated for thirty 
days.   

 
 
[¶6]      After completing 
his jail term, Father entered an inpatient treatment program to address his drug 
problems.  However, he left the 
program without permission less than twenty-four hours later.  A warrant was issued for Father's arrest 
and, although DFS regularly contacted him on a cell phone over the next few 
months to set up visitation with Child, he declined because he did not want to 
risk being arrested.    

 
 
[¶7]      On July 20, 2007, 
Father led law enforcement officers on a high speed chase; he was eventually 
apprehended in Colorado after almost running over the officers.  The officers found syringes that tested 
presumptively positive for methamphetamine in the vehicle he was driving.  DFS contacted Father while he was 
incarcerated in Colorado, but he did not inquire about Child's well-being.  While awaiting completion of his 
criminal proceedings, Father offered to relinquish his parental rights to Child 
in return for lenient treatment on his criminal charges.    

 
 
[¶8]      DFS filed a 
petition to terminate Father's parental rights on January 9, 2008.  The petition included two bases for 
termination of parental rights under § 14-2-309(a):  1) Father was incarcerated on a felony 
conviction and was unfit to have care and custody of Child under subsection 
(iv); and 2) Child had been in foster care for fifteen of the most recent 
twenty-two months and Father was unfit  
under subsection (v).  
Despite having filed the termination petition, DFS developed a case plan 
with Father in March 2008, which listed family reunification as a concurrent 
plan.  Father agreed to the 
provisions of the plan pertaining to visitation with Child.  He did not, however, agree with other 
provisions of the plan which required him to maintain contact with Child by 
writing him letters three times per week and researching and writing multiple 
monthly reports about child development, discipline and attachment disorder 
issues.  In a letter, he indicated 
that he was willing to write Child once per week and submit one child 
development report per month.      

 
 
[¶9]      DFS transported 
Child to the penitentiary for visitation with Father in March 2008.  At that time, Father had not had any 
contact with Child, who was approximately sixteen months old, for almost eleven 
months.  According to the DFS case 
worker who supervised the visit, it was awkward, with Father spending most of 
his time conversing with his own mother and the caseworker rather than 
interacting with Child.  Moreover, 
when Child started fussing, Father's mother asked him if he would hold 
Child.  Father replied, "No, he is 
just a brat.  He has been spoiled 
like that since he has been born.  
He just wants to be held."    

 
 
[¶10]   At the next visitation, Father 
interacted a little with Child, but he spent most of the visit talking to his 
father and stepmother who also attended the visitation.  According to the caseworker who 
supervised the visit, Father showed no emotional attachment to Child.  The May 2008 visit had to be canceled 
because Child was hospitalized.  
When the caseworker called to inform Father of the cancellation, he asked 
when the termination hearing was scheduled to be held but did not inquire about 
Child's health.  The next visit in 
June 2008 apparently went better than the others, although the caseworker 
reported that Father continued to show little affection for Child.              

 
 
[¶11]   The district court held a hearing 
on the termination petition on July 11, 2008.  DFS withdrew its allegation under § 
14-2-309(a)(v) at the beginning of the hearing and focused its case on whether 
termination was appropriate under § 14-2-309(a)(iv) because Father was 
incarcerated on a felony conviction and was unfit to have custody and control of 
Child.  Father stipulated that he 
was incarcerated on a felony conviction and the district court ruled that DFS 
had proven by clear and convincing evidence that he was presently unfit to 
parent Child.  Consequently, it 
entered an order terminating Father's parental rights.  He appealed.     

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶12]   Father challenges the sufficiency 
of the evidence to support the district court's termination 
decision.

 
 
[W]e 
apply our traditional principles of evidentiary review when a party challenges 
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination. Thus, 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.

 
 

SLB 
v. JEO (In the Interest of ANO), 
2006 WY 74, ¶ 7, 136 P.3d 797, 799-800 (Wyo. 2006), quoting SLJ v. Dep't of 
Family Servs., 2005 WY 3, ¶ 19, 104 P.3d 74, 79-80 (Wyo. 2005).  See also, CL v. Wyo. Dep't of Family Servs., 2007 
WY 23, ¶ 8, 151 P.3d 1102, 1105 (Wyo. 2007).  

 
 
[¶13]   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 a parent's rights to his or her 
children.  CL, ¶ 9, 151 P.3d  at 1105; SLB, ¶ 
7, 136 P.3d at 799-800; TF v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 118, ¶ 15, 
120 P.3d 992, 1000 (Wyo. 2005).  DFS 
has the obligation to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 
termination is appropriate.  SLJ, ¶ 19, 104 P.3d  at 79-80. 
"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).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶14]   Section 14-2-309(a) provides seven 
separate bases for termination of parental rights: 

 
 
(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:

                        
(i) The child has been left in the care of another person without 
provision for the child's support and without communication from the absent 
parent for a period of at least one (1) year. In making the above determination, 
the court may disregard occasional contributions, or incidental contacts and 
communications;

                        
(ii) The child has been abandoned with no means of identification for at 
least three (3) months and efforts to locate the parent have been 
unsuccessful;

                        
(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;

                        
(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;

                        
(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;

                        
(vi) The child is abandoned at less than one (1) year of age and has been 
abandoned for at least six (6) months;

                        
(vii) The child was relinquished to a safe haven provider in accordance 
with W.S. 14-11-101 through 14-11-109, and neither parent has affirmatively 
sought the return of the child within three (3) months from the date of 
relinquishment.

            

Father 
conceded the first element of § 14-2-309(a)(iv)that he was incarcerated on a 
felony conviction.  The evidence at 
the hearing, therefore, focused on the second elementwhether Father was fit to 
have custody and control of Child.  
See, DKM v. RJS, 924 P.2d 985, 987 (Wyo. 
1996) (indicating that both elements of § 14-2-309(a)(iv) must be proven by 
clear and convincing evidence).  The 
terms fit and/or unfit are not defined in the termination statutes.  Obviously, the determination of whether 
a parent is unfit to have care and custody of a child must be made within the 
context of a particular case and will depend upon the situation and attributes 
of the specific parent and child.  
Looking at our cases, we are able to extrapolate that fitness includes 
the ability to meet the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of the 
child.  See CDB v. DJE, 2005 WY 102, ¶ 7, 118 P.3d 439, 441 (Wyo. 2005).  See also, RHF v. RMC, (In the Matter of the Adoption 
of JLP), 774 P.2d 624, 630 n. 7 (Wyo. 1989) (reviewing, in a footnote, 
definitions of unfit from other jurisdictions).   

 
 
[¶15]   The district court ruled that 
Father was an unfit parent and termination of his parental rights to Child was 
warranted under § 14-2-309(a)(iv).  
Father asserts that he is not unfit; he is simply a first time father who 
is trying to learn to parent.  He 
maintains that he was working toward being a good parent.  Father argues that DFS's case was weak 
because it focused on the fact he was not "cuddly" with Child.    

 
 
[¶16]   DFS presented evidence that Father 
did not have an emotional bond with Child.  
That was, however, just a small part of its case.  DFS also produced evidence that Father 
had an on-going drug problem, which, at the time of the hearing, he still had 
not addressed through treatment or counseling.  Additionally, the hearing evidence 
established that he had a significant criminal history involving illegal 
controlled substances, absconding from law enforcement and the high speed chase 
in July 2007.  Additional evidence 
was presented that Father continually declined opportunities to visit Child 
while the warrant was out for his arrest and he offered to relinquish his 
parental rights to secure more lenient treatment in his criminal case.  Furthermore, he refused to comply with 
many of the provisions identified by DFS in the case plans to develop his child 
rearing skills.  

 
 
[¶17]   Father also indicates that the 
district court incorrectly focused on his incarceration and past behavior 
instead of his fitness to parent at the time of the hearing.  Father is correct in asserting that 
incarceration, by itself, is not sufficient to establish a parent is unfit and, 
thereby, justify termination of parental rights.  JD v. State of Wyoming, Dep't of Family 
Servs., 2009 WY 78, ¶ 18, 208 P.3d 1323, 1328 (Wyo. 2009).  See also, BA v. Laramie County Dep't of Family Servs. 
(In the Interest of FM), 2007 WY 128, ¶ 16, 163 P.3d 844, 849 (Wyo. 2007); 
CDB, ¶ 6, 118 P.3d  at 441. In addition, we have repeatedly stated 
that DFS has the responsibility for showing present unfitness; however, 
"[e]vidence of past behavior is . . . plainly relevant in determining current 
parental fitness." JD, ¶ 18, 208 P.3d  
at 1328.  See also, FM, ¶ 19, 163 P.3d  at 849.   

 
 
[¶18]   Father stated that, due to his 
incarceration, he was unable to comply with many of the requirements of his case 
plans.  For example, he testified 
that he was not yet eligible to attend substance abuse classes in prison, prison 
personnel had refused his request to send part of his prison wages to the court 
for child support because there was no court order in place, and he did not have 
access to materials to prepare the child development reports requested by 
DFS.  Commenting on Father's 
testimony, the district court specifically stated that it did not find him to be 
a credible witness.  Indeed, his 
excuses for failing to meet the requirements fall apart, to some extent, when 
the remainder of the record is considered.  
For example, he stated that he had been denied admission to the substance 
abuse program; however, his sincerity in seeking treatment is undermined because 
in a form requesting admission to a substance abuse treatment program at prison, 
he stated that he did not believe he had a drug or alcohol problem or that he 
could benefit from treatment.    

 
 
[¶19]   Although Father agreed to write one 
child development report per month, he did not follow through with the 
agreement, allegedly because he did not have any appropriate reference 
materials.  When asked if he had 
tried to access such materials, he basically stated that he had not made any 
efforts to do so.  Father also 
promised to write Child once per week, but only managed to write three letters 
over the several months he was in prison prior to the termination hearing.    

 
 
[¶20]   Father points to very little 
evidence that he made positive efforts to maintain a relationship with 
Child.  Instead, the evidence showed 
that he relied upon DFS to make all arrangements for him to have contact with 
Child.  In addition, Father showed 
little interest in Child's well-beinghe did not inquire about Child after he 
was apprehended in Colorado and had not had any contact with Child for months 
and, even when informed that Child was ill and had been hospitalized, he did not 
ask about his health situation.  He 
also offered to relinquish his parental rights in exchange for more lenient 
treatment in his criminal case.  
Conclusive evidence showed that Father never supported or provided an 
appropriate home for Child and showed little emotional connection to Child or, 
indeed, any indication that he was making efforts to develop a healthy 
relationship with Child.  Father's 
actions, including the incident where he called Child a brat during visitation, 
demonstrated a total lack of empathy for the toddler. 

 
 
[¶21]   It is useful to compare Father's 
efforts and behavior to those of the mother in FM. FM and his sisters were taken into 
protective custody after a welfare check revealed that the mother's home was 
dirty and there was evidence that methamphetamine was being used in the 
home.  FM, ¶ 3, 163 P.3d  at 846.  The mother initially did very little to 
comply with DFS's efforts to reunite her with FM and was eventually convicted of 
delivery and conspiracy to deliver methamphetamine.  She was placed on probation and ordered 
to complete a drug treatment program, but chose instead to leave the 
jurisdiction.  After a five month 
absence, FM's mother turned herself in to authorities.  Her probation was revoked and she was 
sentenced to prison.  Id., ¶¶ 4-5, 163 P.3d  at 846.    

 
 
[¶22]   While she was in prison, DFS filed 
a petition to terminate her parental rights to FM.  Id., ¶ 6, 163 P.3d  at 846-47.  The district court granted the 
termination petition, but we reversed, concluding there was insufficient 
evidence in the record to support termination of the mother's parental rights to 
FM.  Id., ¶ 25, 163 P.3d  at 850.  Unlike Father, FM's mother attempted to 
maintain contact with her children from the time they were removed from her 
home, even when she left the jurisdiction to avoid criminal prosecution.  In contrast to Father's efforts in this 
case, FM's mother completed a variety of courses to address her drug dependency, 
parenting problems, and employment needs after her son had been removed from her 
custody.  At the termination 
hearing, she testified that "she [was] not the same person" as when she was in 
the midst of her legal troubles.  FM, ¶ 17, 163 P.3d  at 849.  

 
 
[¶23]   In contrast to the efforts of FM's 
mother, Father had very limited contact with Child during his life, made little 
effort to develop or maintain a relationship with him or improve his parenting 
skills and did not have the present ability to provide for the ongoing physical, 
mental and emotional needs of Child.  
We conclude, therefore, that DFS presented clear and convincing evidence 
showing Father was unfit to have care and custody of Child.  

 
 
[¶24]   Finally, Father claims that DFS 
misled him in violation of fundamental 
fairness by not providing reasonable efforts to help him to reunify with 
Child.  We have previously held that 
DFS is required to show it made reasonable reunification efforts and its 
rehabilitation efforts were unsuccessful only when it requests termination under 
§ 14-2-309(a)(iii).  The other 
provisions of § 14-2-309(a), including subsection (iv), do not require DFS to 
make reasonable reunification efforts.  
SLJ, ¶ 32, 104 P.3d  at 
82-83.  Moreover, Father's argument 
that he was somehow misled by DFS when it continued to provide him services and 
visitation opportunities after filing the termination petition is untenable. 
 Evidence that he conversed about 
the termination action with his family members during visitation with Child and 
with the DFS caseworker indicated he was well aware of the pending termination 
action.  

 
 
[¶25]   Affirmed.