Title: IN THE INTEREST OF NDP, JAP, ANP and ICP, minor children, CP V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE INTEREST OF NDP, JAP, ANP and ICP, minor children, CP V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2009 WY 73208 P.3d 614Case Number: S-08-0210Decided: 06/03/2009
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
IN 
THE INTEREST OF NDP, JAP, ANP and ICP, minor children, 
CP,Appellant(Respondent)v.THE STATE OF WYOMING, 
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY 
SERVICES,Appellee(Petitioner).

 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellant:

Cynthia 
K. Sweet, Casper, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

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

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

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

            

[¶1]      CP (Mother) 
appeals from the juvenile court's disposition order after she was found to have 
neglected her children.  She claims 
the juvenile court erred by ruling that the Department of Family Services (DFS) 
did not need to make further efforts to reunify her with the children and 
ordering it to proceed with establishing a family guardianship.  

 
 
[¶2]      We affirm. 

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶3]      Mother presents 
two issues on appeal:

 
 
Did 
the District Court err in failing to state the standard of proof it applied in 
waiving reunification efforts?

 
 
Was 
sufficient evidence presented to support the District Court's ruling waiving 
reunification efforts?

 
 
The 
State's statement of the issues is similar.  

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      Mother has four 
minor children, NDP, JAP, ANP and ICP.1  The State took the children into custody 
on April 19, 2007, after Mother was arrested for violating her probation by 
testing positive for methamphetamine use.  
At that time, NDP was 13 years old, JAP was 12 years old, ANP was 7 years 
old and ICP was 5 years old.  The 
State filed a petition alleging that the children were neglected, and the 
children were placed in foster care with their maternal aunt.        

 
 
[¶5]      DFS filed a 
family case plan on May 22, 2007, identifying family reunification as the 
permanency goal and stating that a permanency hearing would be held 12 months 
from the date of placement of the children outside the home.  In part, the plan objectives required 
Mother to:  1) attend to her 
substance abuse needs by completing an Alcohol Severity Index (ASI), following 
the ASI recommendations, completing random urinary analyses (UAs) and abstaining 
from all illegal and non-prescribed drugs; and 2) attend to her mental health 
needs by completing a psychological evaluation, calling "Psych. Rehab" for a 
screening, and following all treatment recommendations.  Mother did not sign that case plan and 
initially denied the neglect allegations.  

 
 
[¶6]      The 
multi-disciplinary team (MDT) held a meeting on June 20, 2007.  The report from the meeting stated the 
DFS caseworker had asked Mother to complete a psychological evaluation and an 
ASI and submit to random UAs.  The 
MDT agreed that, in addition to the goal of family reunification, a concurrent 
goal would be relative placement and/or guardianship.  Although Mother did not sign the MDT 
report, her attorney signed it, indicating he agreed with the MDT 
recommendations.      

 
 
[¶7]      On July 20, 2007, 
the parties filed a stipulation and order for consent decree with the juvenile 
court.  Mother admitted the neglect 
allegations, but the finding of neglect was held in abeyance pending her 
compliance with the consent decree pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-428 
(LexisNexis 2007).2  The order expressly stated that 
reasonable efforts had been made to reunite the children with their 
parents.  The permanency plan 
continued to be reunification of the children with Mother, and she was ordered 
to comply with the DFS case plan.  A 
predisposition report, also filed on July 20, 2007, reiterated Mother's 
responsibilities for completing substance abuse treatment and a psychological 
evaluation.    

 
 
[¶8]      Mother entered a 
residential substance abuse treatment facility known as Reflections on July 23, 
2007, but failed to complete the program.  
Thereafter, Mother's probation was revoked and she was incarcerated until 
October 2, 2007.     

 
 
[¶9]      On October 5, 
2007, Mother and DFS entered into another family services case plan.  This time the plan required Mother to 
complete an inpatient drug treatment program with the Wyoming Substance Abuse 
Treatment and Recovery Center (WYSTAR) so that she could meet the plan's goal of 
leading a clean and sober lifestyle and, ultimately, be reunified with her 
children.  It stated that another 
case plan would be developed after Mother completed treatment at WYSTAR.  Mother agreed to this plan.  

 
 
[¶10]   While waiting to enter WYSTAR, 
Mother resided at Women's Heart and participated in an Intensive Outpatient 
Program.  She was discharged from 
the program "due to an incident while traveling to Denver."  She then lived with her mother until she 
was admitted to WYSTAR on October 17, 2007.  

 
 
[¶11]   Less than a month later, on 
November 13, 2007, Mother was discharged from WYSTAR without successfully 
completing the program.  WYSTAR's 
report stated:

 
 
Please 
be advised that [Mother] did not 
complete the WYSTAR Residential Treatment Program and was discharged at 
staff request on this date.  She has 
not appeared to be invested in treatment, and in spite of numerous attempts by 
staff to bring about behavior modification; including two formal staffings 
concerning her readiness to change (Dimension IV of the ASAM Criteria), she has 
been consistently unwilling to follow directives and has demonstrated a lack of 
readiness to change.  [Mother] 
appears to be lacking insight concerning her behaviors and attitudes, to the 
extent that staff is concerned about her psychiatric stability.  It appears that [Mother] is in need of a 
level of care that WYSTAR is not equipped to provide.  

 
 
[¶12]   The State filed a motion to 
reinstate the original neglect petition on December 5, 2007, because Mother had 
not complied with the terms of the consent decree.  The district court granted the State's 
motion, entered Mother's earlier admission of neglect and ordered Mother to 
complete a psychological evaluation and follow the evaluator's 
recommendations.   

 
 
[¶13]   The parties entered into another 
family services case plan on March 24, 2008.  Consistent with earlier plans, it listed 
reunification of the family as a goal and required Mother to complete a 
psychological evaluation, maintain sobriety demonstrated with random UAs, and 
complete another ASI.   

 
 
[¶14]   After evaluating her, a 
psychologist diagnosed Mother with several substance abuse issues and 
personality disorders.  He 
recommended that Mother undergo substance abuse treatment and individual 
psychotherapy and that she contact her physician to "determine whether she would 
gain from medical interventions to reduce her symptoms."  The psychologist also stated that Mother 
was not able to provide full-time care for her children, but, as long as she 
remained free from substance abuse, she could provide adequate care while 
visiting the children.    

 
 
[¶15]   The juvenile court held a 
disposition hearing on May 20, 2008.  
It ruled that the State had made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and 
her children but its efforts were unsuccessful.  The court ruled that DFS did not need to 
make further efforts to reunify the children with Mother and ordered the agency 
to proceed with establishing a family guardianship of the children.  Mother appealed from the district 
court's disposition order.  

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

1.         
Standard of Proof

 
 
[¶16]   Mother asserts that the juvenile 
court erred by failing to specifically state that it was applying the 
preponderance of the evidence standard in its rulings at the disposition 
hearing, particularly the ruling that DFS did not need to make further efforts 
to reunify the children with Mother.  
She seeks a remand to have the juvenile court make the proper 
ruling.  

 
 
[¶17]   It is well established that in 
neglect proceedings the State has the burden of proving the allegations by a 
preponderance of the evidence.  AA v. Wyo. Dep't of Family Servs. (In re 
HP), 2004 WY 82, ¶ 25, 93 P.3d 982, 989 (Wyo. 2004); DH v. Wyo. Dep't of Family Servs. (In re "H" 
Children), 2003 WY 155, ¶ 39, 79 P.3d 997, 1008  (Wyo. 2003).  The preponderance of the evidence 
standard also applies to the juvenile court's determinations that reunification 
efforts have not been successful and it is appropriate to proceed with an out of 
home placement in accordance with a permanency plan.  AA, ¶¶ 25-31, 93 P.3d  at 989-91.  

 
 
[¶18]   Mother does not direct us to any 
statute or case law requiring the juvenile court to explicitly state the 
standard of proof at the disposition hearing.  Furthermore, in order to obtain reversal 
of a juvenile court's ruling on the basis of a violation of a legal requirement, 
the appellant must show that she was prejudiced by the violation.  DH, ¶ 24, 79 P.3d  at 1003.  Although the juvenile court did not 
specifically identify the standard of proof, the record clearly demonstrates 
that the juvenile court applied the preponderance of the evidence standard.  The court advised Mother that the State 
had the burden of proving its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence at 
her initial hearing and again at the hearing where it accepted her admission of 
neglect pursuant to the consent decree.  
In light of our ruling, infra, 
that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's findings that 
the State had proven its case by a preponderance of the evidence, we can discern 
no prejudice in the juvenile court's failure to specify the standard of proof at 
the disposition hearing.   

     

2.         
Sufficiency of the Evidence

 
 
[¶19]   Mother challenges the sufficiency 
of the evidence to support the juvenile court's rulings that further 
reunification efforts were not necessary.  
When reviewing the juvenile court's findings, we employ the following 
standards:

 
 
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)).

 
 

AA, 
¶ 
17, 93 P.3d  at 987.  

 

[¶20]   After the disposition hearing, the 
juvenile court ruled: 

 
 
[I]t 
is neither appropriate nor in the best interest of the children for [them] to 
remain in [their] home.  This 
finding was made with the knowledge that reasonable efforts were made to reunite 
the children with the children's family and/or reasonable efforts were made to 
make it possible for the children to return to [their] home.  

 
 
The 
juvenile court continued: 

 
 
            
IT IS . . . ORDERED that the permanency plan shall be waiver of 
reunification with [Mother and Father] and family guardianship and the 
Department of Family Services is making reasonable efforts to achieve 
permanency.   

 
 
            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Department of Family Services made 
reasonable efforts to reunify the minor children with [Mother and Father] and 
those efforts were unsuccessful.  

 
 
[¶21]   Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-440 
(LexisNexis 2007) governs reunification efforts:

 
 
(a) 
Except as provided in W.S. 14-2-309(b) or (c), reasonable efforts shall be made 
to preserve and reunify the family:

            
(i) Prior to placement of the child outside the home, to prevent or 
eliminate the need for removing the child from the child's home; 
and

            
(ii) To make it possible for the child to safely return to the child's 
home.

(b) 
In determining what reasonable efforts shall be made with respect to a child and 
in making those reasonable efforts, the child's health and safety shall be the 
paramount concern.

(c) 
Reasonable efforts to place a child for adoption or with a legal guardian may be 
made concurrently with the reasonable efforts described in subsection (a) of 
this section.

(d) 
If continuation of reasonable efforts described in subsection (a) of this 
section is determined to be inconsistent with the permanency plan for the child, 
reasonable efforts shall be made for placement of the child in a timely manner 
in accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete the steps necessary to 
finalize the permanent placement of the child.

(e) 
Reasonable efforts determinations shall include whether or not services to the 
family have been accessible, available and appropriate.

(f) 
The court shall make the reasonable efforts determinations required under this 
section at every court hearing.  The 
reasonable efforts determinations shall be documented in the court's 
orders.

(g) 
Reasonable efforts shall be made to place the child in a timely manner in 
accordance with the permanency plan, and to complete whatever steps are 
necessary to finalize the permanent placement of the 
child.

 
 
The 
plain language of § 14-3-440 requires DFS to make reasonable efforts to reunify 
the family.  Nevertheless, the 
statute also recognizes that the children's health and safety is paramount, 
timely placement of children in accordance with a permanency plan may take 
precedence over family reunification, and reunification efforts inconsistent 
with the permanency plan may be discontinued.  

 
 
[¶22]   Here, the juvenile court considered 
DFS's efforts to reunify the children with Mother and found them to be 
sufficient but ultimately unsuccessful.  
The court remarked that the case had been on-going for more than a year 
and expressed frustration with Mother's lack of progress on her case plans.  It noted that Mother had failed to 
follow many of the court's orders, including completing substance abuse 
treatment.  The juvenile court 
therefore found, consistent with the MDT's recommendation, that further 
reunification efforts would be futile and family guardianship would be an 
appropriate permanency plan.    

 
 
[¶23]   Mother claims the juvenile court 
erred by rejecting additional reunification efforts on the basis that she had 
not completed substance abuse treatment because the treatment requirement was 
not appropriate.  The record does 
not support Mother's position.  The 
children were originally removed from the home because Mother was arrested for 
violating the terms of her probation by testing positive for illegal 
methamphetamine use.  That 
circumstance, alone, indicates that substance abuse treatment was 
appropriate.  

 
 
[¶24]   Throughout the case, reunification 
was conditioned upon Mother completing substance abuse treatment.  Mother agreed with that task in her 
consent decree and associated case plans.  
She entered three different programs approved by DFS and/or the juvenile 
court, but did not complete any of them.  
The final program was the intensive inpatient WYSTAR program.  She was discharged from that program 
after less than a month.  The 
discharge report indicated that, while the staff was concerned about her 
psychological issues, she had also been "consistently unwilling to follow 
directives and ha[d] demonstrated a lack of readiness to change."  A psychological evaluation completed 
shortly before the disposition hearing stated that Mother continued to have 
substance abuse issues.  While her 
UAs had all been negative, several of them were "dilute," rendering the results 
unreliable; at other times, she did not show up at scheduled UA 
appointments.    

 
 
[¶25]   Mother relies on an ASI completed 
shortly before the disposition hearing which concluded that, because she had 
been abstinent for nine months, she did not need substance abuse treatment.  Her position is not persuasive because 
the results of that ASI were based solely on Mother's self-reporting and were 
inconsistent with the psychological evaluation.  In fact, the psychologist was questioned 
about that ASI at the disposition hearing:

 
 
Q. 
. . .  Would it surprise you if that 
ASI stated that no further substance abuse treatment was being 
recommended?

 
 
A.        I 
wouldn't be surprised.  I really --- 
you know, the ASI and procedure itself I think lends itself to a lot of 
questions, in my thinking anyway.

 
 
            
Based on her substantial history of alcohol and [illicit] substance use 
and her psychological conditions, I think she would best be served by outpatient 
substance abuse services.

 
 
[¶26]   Mother also argues that she 
actually complied with the substance abuse treatment requirement by completing 
an out-patient treatment program on her own and without DFS's assistance.  While Mother's attorney stated at the 
hearing to reinstate the neglect petition that he had a letter confirming she 
had completed a program, we are not directed to any such document in the 
record.  Moreover, even assuming she 
completed the program, the psychological evaluation stated that Mother needed 
additional substance abuse treatment.  
On this record, we cannot fault the juvenile court for refusing to give 
credence to Mother's position that she complied with the substance abuse 
treatment component of her case plans.   

 
 
[¶27]   Mother also seems to be arguing 
that she could not complete the treatment requirement because of her underlying 
psychological issues and she was not given an adequate opportunity to address 
those issues as her psychological evaluation was not finalized until just before 
the disposition hearing.  Evidence 
in the record establishes that the requirement of obtaining a psychological 
evaluation was included in the earliest case plan and reiterated in subsequent 
plans and the MDT recommendations.  
Contrary to Mother's assertion that DFS did not adequately assist her in 
obtaining a psychological evaluation, the first case plan directed her to 
"Psych. Rehab" for a screening.  

 
 
[¶28]   Parents share the burden of 
ensuring that the child protection system works properly.  There is no evidence suggesting that 
Mother took a proactive role to complete the task of addressing her 
psychological needs and DFS somehow impeded or failed to assist her 
efforts.  Mother cannot fault DFS 
for failing to provide services if she was not doing her part to complete the 
task of obtaining a psychological evaluation.  

 
 
[¶29]   Mother additionally claims that the 
juvenile court unfairly faulted her for a lack of consistent visitation with the 
children and failing to secure appropriate housing.  After reviewing the transcript of the 
disposition hearing and the resulting order, it does not appear that those 
issues were dispositive in the juvenile court's decision to move forward with 
the permanency plan of guardianship.  
Thus, there is no justification for reversing the juvenile court's ruling 
on those bases.  

 
 
[¶30]   The juvenile court's oral and 
written rulings demonstrate that it considered the family's entire situation in 
ordering disposition of the children.  
The court noted that the children had been placed outside the family home 
for more than a year, during which time Mother had not made any significant 
advances toward reunification.  The 
psychological evaluation echoed the sentiment that Mother was not ready to have 
physical custody of her children:  

 
 
During 
this evaluation, [Mother] described her sincere interest in providing daily care 
to her children.  However, at this 
time [Mother] does not appear to be sufficiently stable to take the additional 
responsibility for her children.  
Prior to the placement of her children in her home, [Mother] should 
demonstrate responsible behaviors in several areas of [her] life including 
sustained full remission from alcohol and illicit substance use, a stable and 
safe home, and a sufficient resolution of her mental health problems.  With ongoing abstinence from substance 
abuse, she will likely provide adequate care to her children during visitation. 

 
 
At 
this time, [Mother's] oldest son is unwilling to pursue their relationship.   [Mother] and her children may gain 
from family therapy.

 
 
If 
[Mother] is unable to accomplish these goals within the time lines required by 
law, her team should consider a permanent placement for her children.  

     

[¶31]   From the beginning of the case, 
Mother had been advised, consistent with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-431(d) 
(LexisNexis 2007),3 that a permanency hearing would 
occur within one year of the children's placement outside the family home.  She had also been repeatedly advised that 
a concurrent permanency plan of family guardianship was being developed and 
pursued.  Given that, at the time of 
the disposition hearing, none of the professionals involved in the case believed 
that reunification could be accomplished within a reasonable time, the juvenile 
court properly concluded  that the 
State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that continuation of efforts 
to reunite the children with Mother was inconsistent with the permanency plan of 
placing the children in a long-term guardianship.  See § 14-3-440(d).  The juvenile court's order recognized 
the children's rights and needs for stability and permanency and there was 
sufficient evidence to support it.  
See CL v. Wyo. Dep't of Family Servs. (In re 
A.D.), 2007 WY 23, 151 P.3d 1102 (Wyo. 2007).4   

 
 
[¶32]   Affirmed.  

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The children's father apparently did not have custody of them and is not 
part of this case, although he was included in some of the family case 
plans.      

 
 

2Section 14-3-428 states:

 

            
 (a) At any time after the 
filing of a petition alleging a child to be neglected and before adjudication, 
the court may issue a consent decree ordering further proceedings held in 
abeyance.  The placement of the 
child is subject to the terms, conditions and stipulations agreed to by the 
parties affected in accordance with  
W.S. 14-3-429.  The consent 
decree shall not be entered without the consent of the district attorney, the 
child's guardian ad litem and the parents.  
Modifications to an existing consent decree may be 
allowed.

            
(b) The consent decree shall be in writing and copies given to all 
parties.  The decree shall include 
the case plan for the family.

            
(c) A consent decree, if the child remains within the home, shall be in 
force for the period agreed upon by the parties unless sooner terminated by the 
court.

            
(d) If the child is placed outside the home, a consent decree shall be in 
force for the period agreed upon by the parties but not longer than six (6) 
months unless sooner terminated by the court.  For good cause the court may grant one 
(1) extension of the consent decree for no longer than six (6) 
months.

            
(e) If a consent decree is in effect and the child is in placement, the 
court shall hold review hearings as provided by W.S. 
14-3-431.

            
(f) If prior to discharge by the court or expiration of the consent 
decree, the parents or guardian of a child alleged to be neglected fail to 
fulfill the terms and conditions of the decree or a new petition is filed 
alleging the child to be neglected, the original petition and proceeding may be 
reinstated upon order of the court after hearing, and the court may proceed as 
though the consent decree had never been entered.  If, as part of the consent decree, the 
parents or guardian made an admission to any of the allegations contained in the 
original petition, that admission shall be entered only if the court orders that 
the original petition and proceeding be reinstated and the admissions, if any, 
be entered.  If the admission is 
entered, the court may proceed to disposition pursuant to W.S. 
14-3-426.

            
(g) Parties discharged by the court under a consent decree without 
reinstatement of the original petition and proceeding shall not thereafter be 
proceeded against in any court for the same misconduct alleged in the original 
petition except concurrent criminal allegations or charges against a person 
accused to have abused or neglected a child shall not be affected by a consent 
decree.

 

3Section 14-3-431(d) states: 

 
 
The court shall conduct a permanency hearing no later than twelve (12) 
months from the date of the child's removal from the home and not less than once 
every twelve (12) months thereafter if the child remains in out-of-home 
placement or more frequently as deemed necessary by the 
court.

 

4It 
is important to understand that Mother's parental rights were not terminated in 
this case.  Although the juvenile 
court ordered long term placement outside the home, Mother still retained 
residual parental rights including, among others, the right to reasonable 
visitation unless restricted or prohibited by court order.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(xvi) 
(LexisNexis 2007).  The State and 
the psychologist recognized, at the disposition hearing, the importance of 
continuing to encourage and facilitate a relationship between the children and 
Mother.