Case Title: IN THE INTEREST OF CF and DL : FL V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-04-10

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE INTEREST OF CF and DL : FL V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2005 WY 52110 P.3d 283Case Number: C-04-10Decided: 04/26/2005
 
 
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
                                                                                                            

 
 
IN THE 
INTEREST OF CF and DL, minors:

 
 
FL,

 
 
Appellant

(Respondent) 
,

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OFWYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner) 
.

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofCarbonCounty

The 
Honorable Wade Waldrip, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney 
General; Dan Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Ellen Rutledge, 
Assistant Attorney General

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

 
 
            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      FL appeals an 
adjudication that she neglected her two children.  Finding sufficient evidence to support 
the juvenile court's adjudication, we affirm.

 
 

[¶2]      In her pro se 
brief, FL posits the following statements as an issue:

That as a mother I was neglectful of 
my children.  That I knew in advance 
and had knowledge that something would occur or did occur, and did not Remove 
[sic] my children from the household and so failed to protect my 
children.

 
 
Appellee 
Carbon County Department of Family Services (Carbon County DFS) restates the 
issue presented by FL and adds another:

 
 

I.                     
Whether 
this appeal should be dismissed for appellant's failure to comply with the 
Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure and 
for failing to provide cogent argument and authority?

 
 

II.                   
Whether 
there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to determine, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that appellant's activities met the statutory 
definition of neglect?

 
 

[¶3]      FL is the mother 
of CF, a girl born January 1, 1999, and DL, a boy born April 25, 2001.  FL is married to JL, who is CF's 
stepfather and DL's biologic father.  
FL has three older children from a previous relationship.  In early 2003, JL confessed to FL that 
he had been having "inappropriate thoughts" about CF.  JL talked to their pastor, who 
recommended counseling.  JL also 
talked with his mother.  After those 
conversations, JL claimed that the thoughts were "gone."  FL took no other actions regarding JL's 
admission.

 
 
[¶4]      In early November 
of 2003, Kenneth Meadwell, a friend of JL who was living with the couple at the 
time, spent the day at the house drinking with JL.  FL went to work at about 10:00 p.m. 
while Meadwell and JL continued to drink alcohol and watch television.  JL went back to his bedroom sometime 
around 11:00 or midnight.  When he 
could not find a cigarette lighter, Meadwell went back to JL's bedroom to see if 
he had one.  When he opened the door 
to the room, Meadwell observed JL performing oral sex on CF.  Shaken, Meadwell went back to the living 
room, took a stiff drink of whiskey, grabbed a baseball bat, and returned to the 
bedroom.  CF had left the room, and 
JL was on the phone with FL.  JL 
told FL that Meadwell was going to kill him.  He then handed the phone to 
Meadwell.  Meadwell asked FL whether 
he should kill JL then or wait until she got home.  FL told Meadwell to not kill anyone and 
wait for her to come home.  From the 
context of the conversation, Meadwell believed that FL knew what had happened 
between JL and CF.  Meadwell was so 
upset by what he had witnessed that after talking with FL, he left the residence 
and spent the remainder of the night wandering the streets of Rawlins drinking 
whiskey.  He returned to the house 
shortly after sunrise when FL returned from work.  Meadwell informed FL what he had 
seen.  FL replied that she and JL 
were going to work it out.  Meadwell 
reported the incident to the police in early December.

 
 
[¶5]      On December 15, 
2003, the prosecuting attorney for Carbon County filed a Petition alleging that 
CF and DL were neglected children as defined in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-402(a)(xii) (LexisNexis 2003).1  The Petition alleged that JL had 
committed a sexual offense against CF, and that FL had failed to provide 
adequate protection of her children.

 
 
[¶6]      At the 
adjudication hearing, FL disputed Meadwell's account of events.  FL acknowledged that she received the 
phone call from JL at work and that she talked to Meadwell.  FL testified, however, that Meadwell 
never told her the specifics of the incident that he allegedly observed and that 
she discounted his claims anyway because he was a drunk.  FL claimed that when she questioned JL, 
he could not recall what happened other than that he had thought it was FL who 
was in the bed with him.  FL 
testified that she questioned CF at the time but she had not indicated that 
anything inappropriate had happened.  
According to FL, it was not until after JL was arrested that CF told her 
that there was improper touching.

 
 
[¶7]      At the conclusion 
of the hearing, the juvenile court orally ruled that FL and JL had neglected CF 
and DL.  That ruling was 
memorialized in a written order issued on April 27, 2004.  Legal custody of CF and DL was placed 
with the Department of Family Services.  
FL retained physical custody of the children subject to the supervision 
of the agency.  FL has appealed the 
adjudication of neglect.

 
 

[¶8]      The main thrust 
of FL's argument on appeal is a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence 
supporting the juvenile court's decision.

 
 
When reviewing a record for 
sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of neglect, we:

 
 

1.      
Give 
considerable deference to the trial court's determination because it has the 
advantage to judge the demeanor and intelligence of the 
witnesses;

2.      
Examine 
the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee and resolve all conflicts 
in evidence for appellee;

3.      
Assume as 
true the evidence in appellee's favor, disregard entirely appellant's evidence 
in conflict with appellee's evidence, and give to appellee's evidence every 
favorable inference that may fairly be drawn.

 
 

DH v. Dep't of Family Servs. (In re 
"H" Children), 2003 
WY 155, ¶ 54, 79 P.3d 997, ¶ 54 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting MP v. State in Interest 
of CP, 965 P.2d 1155, 1157 (Wyo. 1998)).

 
 

In re HP, 2004 WY 82, ¶17, 93 P.3d 982, ¶17 
(Wyo. 2004). 

 
 

DISCUSSION

[¶9]      Carbon County DFS 
urges us to dismiss FL's appeal arguing that her brief fails to comply with the 
procedural provisions of W.R.A.P. 7.01 and W.R.C.P. 5 and contains no cogent 
argument or citation to pertinent authority. 

 
 
[¶10]   While we will make allowances 
for pro se litigants, they are not excused from compliance with our 
rules.  Kelley v. Watson, 
2003 WY 127, ¶4, 77 P.3d 691, ¶4 (Wyo. 2003); Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 87 (Wyo. 1995).  Dismissal 
is one of the sanctions we may impose upon an offending party if we deem it 
appropriate.  W.R.A.P. 1.03.  We decline to do so here.  FL's brief is sufficient for us to 
discern a substantive argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to 
support the court's determination of neglect.  Where we have been able to identify the 
nature of the issue raised by a pro se appeal and the legal parameters of 
its resolution, we have been willing to consider the merits of the appeal rather 
than impose sanctions for the technical violations of our rules.  Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶9, 
46 P.3d 295, ¶9 (Wyo. 2002).  We 
will address the merits of FL's argument.

 
 
[¶11]   FL insists that the State did not 
show "beyond a preponderance of the evidence that I did not proceed as a 
reasonable person would" have.  FL 
contends that both CF and JL denied that anything happened and that neither had 
any incentive to lie.  She claims 
that Meadwell is a drunk and not a credible witness.  FL points out that when one of her older 
sons from a prior marriage was caught inappropriately touching CF, she notified 
DFS of the incident and arranged it so her son would not be left alone with CF 
until he could be sent to live with his father.2  FL cites her response to that incident 
as evidence that she knew how to protect her daughter and implied that she would 
have done the same if she believed that JL had posed a threat to CF.  Finally, FL argues that there was no 
evidence that DL was neglected as he was not a witness to the alleged incident 
or the recipient of any impropriety.

 
 
[¶12]   The weight to be given a witness' 
testimony and his credibility are for the trier of fact to determine, not this 
Court.  We will not substitute our 
judgment for that of the trial court with respect to issues of credibility.  Wallop v. Wallop, 2004 WY 46, 
¶10, 88 P.3d 1022, ¶10 (Wyo. 2004); Rutar Farms & Livestock, Inc. v. 
Fuss, 651 P.2d 1129, 1133 (Wyo. 1982).  
The court had the opportunity to observe Meadwell and FL on the stand as 
it listened to their testimony.  
There is nothing in the record that would persuade us that the court's 
conclusion that Meadwell presented a more credible witness of the events at 
issue than FL was in error.  We 
decline FL's invitation to reweigh the evidence and disturb the juvenile court's 
judgment on witness credibility.

 
 
[¶13]   Considering Meadwell's testimony, 
there is clearly sufficient evidence that FL neglected CF.  A neglected child is one "[w]ho has been 
abused by the inflicting or causing of physical or mental injury, [or] harm  
other than by accidental means, including  allowing the commission of a sexual 
offense against a child as defined by law[.]"  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-402(a)(xii)(B).  As set forth 
above, the facts do not support FL's claim to have behaved in a reasonable 
manner.  Despite knowledge of JL's 
"inappropriate thoughts" regarding her daughter, FL took no action restricting 
JL's unsupervised access to her.  A 
reasonable person would have taken JL's declaration that his improper thoughts 
about CF had "disappeared" with a certain amount of incredulity.  At a minimum, such a person would have 
ensured that CF would not have any unsupervised contact with JL.  FL's failure to act and take even basic 
precautions to protect CF allowed JL to act on his "inappropriate thoughts" and 
sexually abuse her. 

 
 
[¶14]   Furthermore, even after being 
confronted with an accusation by an eyewitness that JL was abusing CF, FL 
continued to do nothing to guarantee protection for her daughter.  CF was still residing in the same 
household with her abuser a month after the incident.  FL's continuing failure to take 
appropriate protective action placed her daughter in "imminent danger and 
substantial risk" of being abused again and constituted neglect on her 
part.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-402(a)(xii)(B) and (a)(xii)(B)(IV).  
There was sufficient evidence to support the court's adjudication of FL's 
neglect of CF.

 
 
[¶15]   The record also contains sufficient 
evidence to support the neglect adjudication regarding DL.  DL was not sexually abused.  He was, however, present in the home at 
the time his sister was being abused.  
An adjudication of neglect does not require actual harm to the child: 
Neglect may be predicated on "imminent danger to the physical or mental health 
or welfare of the child[.]"  Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(xii)(B).  
It is not conducive to the welfare of a child to reside in a household 
where there is ongoing sexual abuse of other children.  At a minimum, there was a substantial 
risk that DL would be exposed to the abuse of his sister.  We have little trouble under the 
circumstances upholding the district court's finding of neglect regarding 
DL.

 
 
[¶16]   As a final matter, FL complains 
that the police were allowed to supplement their reports and that she did not 
receive this material during discovery.  
The supplemental material allegedly included statements from a doctor 
that contradicted claims that CF had been abused.  FL contends that withholding this 
evidence was prejudicial to her.

 
 
[¶17]   It is the appealing party's burden 
to present a record sufficient for us to review.  In re Estate of George, 2003 WY 
129, ¶11, 77 P.3d 1219, ¶11 (Wyo. 2003).  
The record before us does not contain the police reports, the court's 
discovery orders or rulings, or any other material indicating that the matter 
was even presented for the district court's consideration.  Without a proper record, there is simply 
no basis upon which we can review FL's claim. 

 
 

CONCLUSION

 
 
[¶18]   The district court's adjudications 
of neglect by FL of her children, CF and DL, are supported by substantial 
evidence.  Affirmed. 

 
 

FOOTNOTES

  1§ 14-3-402. 
Definitions.

 
 

(a)               
As used 
in this act:

. . . 
.

            
(xii)  "Neglected child" means a child:

(A)  Whose 
custodian has failed or refused to provide adequate care, maintenance, 
supervision, education or medical, surgical or any other care necessary for the 
child's well being;

(B)  Who 
has been abused by the inflicting or causing of physical or mental injury, harm 
or imminent danger to the physical or mental health or welfare of the child, 
other than by accidental means, including abandonment, excessive or unreasonable 
corporal punishment, malnutrition or substantial risk thereof by reason of 
intentional or unintentional neglect, and the commission or allowing the 
commission of a sexual offense against a child as defined by 
law:

(I)  "Mental 
injury" means an injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of 
a child as evidenced by an observable or substantial impairment in his ability 
to function within a normal range of performance and behavior with due regard to 
his culture;

(II)  "Physical 
injury" means death or any harm to a child including by not limited to 
disfigurement, impairment of any bodily organ, bleeding, burns, fracture of any 
bone, subdural hematoma, substantial malnutrition or skin bruising if greater in 
magnitude than minor bruising associated with reasonable corporeal 
punishment;

(III)  "Substantial 
risk" means a strong possibility as contrasted with a remote or insignificant 
possibility;

(IV)              
"Imminent 
danger" includes threatened harm and means a statement, overt act, condition or 
status which represents an immediate and substantial risk of sexual abuse or 
physical or mental injury.

2FL 
related this incident in her testimony at the adjudication hearing. The incident 
occurred sometime in 2002.