Case Title: MB v. Laramie County Dept. of Family Services in Interest of LB,

Citation: 

Docket Number: C-96-6

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
MB v. Laramie County Dept. of Family Services in Interest of LB,1997 WY 41933 P.2d 1126Case Number: C-96-6Decided: 03/11/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

MB,

Appellant(Respondent), 

 

v. 

 

LARAMIE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES IN THE 
INTEREST OF

LB, 

Appellee(Petitioner). 

 

 

Appeal 
from The District Court, Laramie County  

The 
Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

John M. Burman, Faculty 
Supervisor; Donna J. Mathews, Student Director, University of Wyoming Legal 
Services Program, Laramie; Steven K. Sharpe, Nicholas Law Offices, 
Cheyenne.

 

Representing 
Appellee: 

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Rowena Heckert, Sr. 
Assistant Attorney General; and Claudia S. Ryan Angelos, Attorney 
Intern.

 

Before TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

 

GOLDEN, Justice. 

[¶1]      M.B., the mother 
of L.B., appeals from an order terminating her parental rights pursuant to WYO. 
STAT. § 14-2-309. Applying strict scrutiny to the actions of the Department of 
Family Services (DFS), we hold that DFS did not follow its own rules in this 
case and reverse the order terminating M.B.'s parental rights to the child, 
L.B.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶2]      Appellant M.B. 
presents the following statement of the issues for our 
review:

I. Did the District Court err when it terminated 
Appellant's parental rights when the statutory requirements for parental 
termination were not met?

II. Does the failure of the Wyoming Department of 
Family Services to follow the law mean that its actions were arbitrary and 
capricious and that termination of M.B.'s parental rights was 
improper?

III. Did the District Court err when it admitted 
testimony of M.B.'s contacts or actions occurring after the date of the filing 
of the Petition to Terminate Parental Rights?

Appellee Laramie County 
Department of Family Services presents the issues as 
follows:

I. Whether the district court properly applied the 
statutory requirements for termination of parental rights? 

II. Whether Appellant's refusal to cooperate in 
establishing a case plan with the Wyoming Department of Family Services can 
serve as a defense to the termination of her parental 
rights?

III. Whether the district court erred when it 
admitted testimony of Appellant's contacts and actions occurring after the date 
of the filing of the petition to terminate parental 
rights?

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      M.B. gave birth 
to L.B. on February 3, 1993, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. M.B. had one supervised visit 
with her son, L.B., on February 4, 1993. There are no allegations that M.B. 
abused L.B. during that brief encounter. L.B. was placed into protective custody 
on February 5, 1993, because M.B. was in need of psychiatric treatment for 
mental illness which prevented her from adequately caring for her infant son. 
M.B. has schizophrenia; however, M.B. testified that, while she was pregnant, 
she was afraid to take the medication which treats her schizophrenia because she 
was afraid it would affect her baby. She was involuntarily committed to the 
Wyoming State Mental Hospital (State Hospital) in Evanston, Wyoming, on February 
8, 1993. On that same day, L.B. was placed in the legal custody of DFS after a 
shelter care hearing and has been in the custody of DFS since that day. L.B. has 
remained in the physical custody of the same foster parents since February 5, 
1993.

 

[¶4]      In April of 1993, 
while M.B. was at the State Hospital, she contacted DFS, asked questions about 
her son and requested pictures of her son. Because M.B. was involuntarily 
committed to the State Hospital, she could not travel to Cheyenne to see L.B. 
DFS did not attempt to take L.B. to the State Hospital to visit M.B. DFS 
completed an original case plan for M.B. and L.B. on April 9, 1993. The case 
plan's stated goal was family reunification. However, the possible consequences 
for failure to carry out the plan were permanency planning for L.B., i.e., 
permanent guardianship or termination of parental rights. The case plan's short 
term goals required M.B. to begin voluntarily taking her medication, working to 
treat her mental illness and working with the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service in Casper to become a legal citizen and remain in the country once she 
was released from the State Hospital. M.B. was unable to sign her case plan and 
DFS did not know whether she ever knew about the case plan, its goals or 
consequences.

 

[¶5]      On May 26, 1993, 
M.B. was released from the State Hospital and deported to Mexico. In December of 
1993, DFS received a letter from M.B. expressing an interest in the well-being 
of L.B. DFS was unable to contact M.B. at the address given on the letter and 
did not hear anything from M.B. until June 16, 1994. On that date, a social 
services worker from Texas contacted DFS, told DFS that M.B. was in a mental 
health facility after the birth of a daughter in April of 1994, and asked if 
M.B. had any children in Wyoming. M.B. was involuntarily committed to the Texas 
mental health facility from April until July, 1994.

 

[¶6]      On August 3 and 
September 7, 1994, M.B. tried to contact DFS. On September 13, 1994, M.B. called 
DFS through her caseworker in Texas (caseworker). During that phone call M.B. 
asked about L.B.'s well-being and what she would need to do to get L.B. back. 
DFS informed M.B. to concern herself with her new daughter, complete her case 
plan in Texas and get her daughter back first, then she could work on getting 
L.B. back. M.B. was not told that she was at risk of having her parental rights 
to L.B. terminated if she did not maintain contact with L.B. or complete her 
Texas case plan in a certain amount of time. On October 26, 1994, M.B. contacted 
DFS, asking about L.B.'s well-being and for pictures of 
L.B.

 

[¶7]      On December 7, 
1994, DFS contacted the caseworker in Texas and set a December 22, 1994, date 
for a six-month case plan review. DFS sent notice of the review meeting to the 
caseworker, but not to M.B., and did not know whether M.B. received notice of 
the meeting. On December 22, 1994, DFS called the caseworker, as scheduled, but 
neither the caseworker nor M.B. were there. DFS talked instead to another 
employee of the Texas Department of Family Services. That employee told DFS that 
M.B. had not been following her case plan, but did not explain why. The employee 
told DFS that he did not feel M.B. would be able to follow her Texas case plan. 
The next day, DFS requested termination of M.B.'s parental rights because M.B. 
was not completing her case plan in Texas. Later, DFS learned that the 
caseworker was ill on December 22, 1994, making the meeting impossible because 
the caseworker had to drive M.B. to the social services office for the telephone 
meeting.

 

[¶8]      DFS filed a 
petition for the termination of parental rights pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 
14-2-309(a)(i) or (iii), on January 27, 1995. In March, August, and October of 
1995, M.B. contacted DFS to ask about her son, stating that she wanted her son 
back and would fight the termination proceedings. The district court held a 
bench trial on January 3, 1996, accepted M.B.'s deposition, taken in Texas on 
January 24, and entered an order terminating M.B.'s parental rights on February 
16, 1996.

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶9]      "There is no 
question that termination of parental rights is directed toward a right that is 
fundamental and substantial." In the 
Interest of DG, 916 P.2d 991, 998 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting TR v. Washakie County Dep't of Pub. 
Assistance and Social Services, 736 P.2d 712, 720 (Wyo. 1987)). We strictly 
construe the application of parental rights termination statutes because of the 
tension between the fundamental liberty of familial association and the 
compelling state interest in protecting the welfare of children. Id. at 995 (quoting Matter of Adoption of JLP, 774 P.2d 624, 
627-29 (Wyo. 1989)). Due to the fundamental nature of the rights affected by a 
termination action, the procedures involved must satisfy due process and the 
evidence supporting a termination must be clear and convincing. Id. The fundamental fairness and 
propriety of the procedures invoked in a termination proceeding may be reviewed 
on a case-by-case basis. Id. (quoting JLP, 774 P.2d  at 627-29, which cites Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982), and Lassiter v. Dep't of Social Services of 
Durham County, North Carolina, 452 U.S. 18, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640 
(1981)).

 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶10]   The Laramie County Department of 
Family Services (DFS) filed a petition for termination of parental rights 
pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 14-2-309(a)(i) and/or (a)(iii) (1994).1 In its findings of fact, 
conclusions of law and order terminating M.B.'s parental rights, the district 
court accepted DFS's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in their 
entirety. However, even if the court found clear and convincing evidence of 
facts sufficient to terminate M.B.'s parental rights pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 
14-2-309, the district court did not address the failure of DFS to follow its 
own rules pertaining to case plans, placement plans, family reunification and 
child protection. As we discuss below, the failure of DFS to follow its own 
rules for the protection of children and preservation of families is dispositive 
in this case.

 

[¶11]   DFS has promulgated certain child 
protection rules which are applicable to this termination of parental rights 
case because they provide a structure within which the Department accomplishes 
its statutory responsibilities. Department of Family Services Division of Youth 
Services Child Protection Rules (1995) ("Rules"). When family reunification is 
the case plan goal, as it was here, DFS has the responsibility to attempt to 
rehabilitate the mother and reunite the family, providing services necessary to 
help the parent accomplish certain specified goals and tasks. WYO. STAT. § 
14-2-309(a)(iii) (1994); Rules, Ch. 1 § 2, 5 and 6(c), Ch. 3 § 5. In this case 
DFS's failure to follow its own rules affected M.B.'s fundamental right to 
remain the legal parent of L.B.

 

[¶12]   In the original, and only, case 
plan DFS wrote for M.B., DFS failed to list any tasks for M.B. to complete in 
order to attain the goals it laid out for her. Rules, Ch. 1 § 4(f), Ch. 3 § 
4(c). DFS then failed to update or review the original case plan, again in 
violation of its own rules. Rules, Ch. 1 § 4(f) (case plans should be time 
limited), § 7 (Department "shall" perform functions, including case planning, 
six and eighteen month reviews and hearings), Ch. 3 § 4(a) (written case plans 
shall be reviewed every six months and updated as needed). DFS claims that it 
told M.B. she must comply with the Texas case plan, get her child in Texas back, 
then work on getting L.B. back. However, none of this "oral case plan" was put 
in writing, in violation of DFS rules. Rules, Ch. 1 § 4(e), Ch. 3 § 4(a), (c). 
DFS failed to provide M.B. with a written case plan and therefore with 
notification of its intent to terminate M.B.'s parental rights if she failed to 
comply with that case plan. There is no evidence in the record that M.B. was 
told at any time that her failure to comply with her "oral" Wyoming case plan or 
her Texas case plan would result in the termination of her parental rights to 
L.B.

 

[¶13]   Finally, L.B. was placed in a 
foster home when he was taken away from M.B. Therefore, the rules applying to 
placement plans apply to M.B. and L.B. From the record provided us, it appears 
DFS also failed to follow its rules concerning placement plans which "shall be 
completed on a Department form" and include: efforts made to return the child to 
his family, place the child in as close proximity to his home as possible, 
completion of a visitation plan between the parent and the child, and six month 
periodic court or administrative reviews shall be held for each child in 
placement. Rules, Ch. 3 § 4(d), (d)(iv) and (vi), (e), and 
(g).

 

[¶14]   Rules and regulations have the 
force and effect of law. Fullmer v. 
Wyoming Employment Sec. Comm'n, 858 P.2d 1122, 1123-24 (Wyo. 1993). An 
administrative agency, such as DFS, is bound to follow its own rules and 
regulations. Id. In this case, the 
DFS rules in question affected M.B.'s fundamental parental rights. Therefore, 
they must be followed strictly and failure to follow those rules and procedures 
must result in a reversal of the action taken when a parent's rights are 
terminated. Matter of Adoption of 
SLS, 808 P.2d 207, 209 (Wyo. 1991) (reversing termination of parental rights 
accomplished through adoption statutes). We vacate the order terminating M.B.'s 
parental rights and remand with directions that the petition to terminate M.B.'s 
parental rights be dismissed.

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶15]   Because DFS failed to follow its 
own rules pertaining to its child protection case plans, services and placement 
plans and that failure adversely affected M.B.'s fundamental rights, we reverse 
the district court's order terminating M.B.'s parental 
rights.

 

Footnotes

1 Wyo. Stat. § 14-2-309(a)(i) and (iii) 
(1994) provides:

(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;

* * 
*

(iii) The child 
has been abused or neglected by the parent and 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;

* * 
*.