Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: SED, JR., minor child

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: SED, JR., minor child2002 WY 16857 P.3d 1235Case Number: C-02-3, C-02-4Decided: 11/19/2002
October Term, A.D. 2002

 

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION

OF 
PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: SED, JR.,

minor 
child:

SD,

Appellant(Respondent) ,

 
 

v.

                                                                                    

CARBON 
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

FAMILY 
SERVICES,

Appellee(Petitioner) 
.

IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION

OF 
PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: SED, JR.,

minor 
child:

                                                                                    

TD,

Appellant(Respondent) ,

 
 

v.

 

CARBON 
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

FAMILY 
SERVICES,

                                                                                    

Appellee(Petitioner) .

 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Carbon County

The Honorable Kenneth E. Stebner, Judge

 
 
    

Representing 
Appellants:

David 
C. Clark, Rawlins, WY; and P.M. "Mike" Roberts of Erickson and Roberts, Rawlins, 
WY.  Argument by Mr. Clark.

 
   

Representing 
Appellee:

Hoke 
MacMillan, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; and 
Dan S. Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Mr. Wilde.

 
   

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, 
LEHMAN, and VOIGT, JJ., and SANDERSON, D.J.

 
 
          

LEHMAN, Justice.

 
 

[¶1]      The 
parents of SED, Jr., a minor child (Minor Child), appeal the district court 
order terminating their parental rights.  
In this consolidated appeal, both parents claim that the court erred when 
it found clear and convincing evidence upon which to terminate their parental 
rights.  We find clear and 
convincing evidence to support the district court's order and accordingly 
affirm.

 
    
          

ISSUE

 

[¶2]      Appellants assert 
eight issues on appeal.  All eight 
issues challenge the facts as found by the district court.  We therefore view the issue as:

 
     

            
Was the district court's finding that parental rights to Minor Child 
should be terminated established by clear and convincing evidence?

 

FACTS

 

[¶3]      
Minor Child was born on March 16, 1996.  Prior to his birth, the Carbon County 
Public Health Nursing Agency (Public Health) and the Department of Family 
Services (DFS) began various programs with his parents due to concern over the 
parents' ability to care for a child.  
These programs included nutritional support, health care, budgeting 
instruction, and housekeeping instruction.  
The services continued after Minor Child's birth in an effort to provide 
a safe and healthy environment for the child.  However, Minor Child was removed from 
his parent's home in March of 1997, immediately before his first birthday.  Minor Child has remained in foster care 
since that time.  

 

[¶4]      
A petition to terminate parental rights was filed on February 8, 
2001.  In October of 2001, a 
three-day trial was held on the petition.  
At the time of trial, Minor Child was five years of age.  On November 16, 2001, the district court 
granted the petition and ordered the parental rights to Minor Child 
terminated.1  

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

 
  

[¶5]      
When setting forth our standard of review for the granting of a petition 
to terminate parental rights we have said:

 

            
Due to the tension between the fundamental liberty of familial 
association and the compelling state interest in protecting the welfare of 
children, application of statutes for termination of parental rights is a matter 
for strict scrutiny.  TR v. 
Washakie County Dep't of Pub. Assistance & Soc. Servs., 736 P.2d 712, 
715 (Wyo. 1987).  As part of this 
strict scrutiny standard, a case for termination of parental rights must be 
established by clear and convincing evidence.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a) (Michie 
1997); In Interest of JG, 742 P.2d 770, 773 (Wyo. 1987); D.S. v. Dep't 
of Pub. Assistance & Soc. Servs., 607 P.2d 911, 919 (Wyo. 1980).  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.  
Matter of GP, 679 P.2d 976, 982 (Wyo. 1984).  Rigorous though this standard may be, we 
apply our traditional principles of evidentiary review when a party challenges 
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination.  Matter of SYM, 924 P.2d 985, 987 
(Wyo. 1996).  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. Id; D.S. v. Dep't of Pub. Assistance & 
Soc. Servs., 607 P.2d at 919-20; In interest of JG, 742 P.2d  at 
773.

 

In Re ZKP, 979 P.2d 953, 956 (Wyo. 1999).  See also In Re IH, 2001 WY 100, 
33 P.3d 172 (Wyo. 2001); Matter of TLC, 2002 WY 76, 46 P.3d 863 (Wyo. 
2002). 

DISCUSSION

 

[¶6]      
The State's petition for termination of parental rights requested 
termination be ordered based on three separate grounds.  The allegations in support of these 
grounds rested upon Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 14-2-309(a)(i), 14-2-309(a)(iii), and 
14-2-309(a)(v) (LexisNexis 2001).  
Although parental rights may be terminated on a finding of just one of 
the above-stated subsections, the district court found clear and convincing 
evidence to support termination on all three grounds.  We agree and will discuss each 
subsection in turn.

 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i)

 
    

[¶7]      
We begin with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(i) which allows the 
parent-child legal relationship to be terminated if "[t]he 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 this case, the issue is 
not whether the parents contributed to the support of Minor Child as the record 
indicates that they did not; rather the issue focuses on lack of 
communication.  The parents claim 
the failure to maintain contact with the minor child was not a result of their 
actions, but instead they were denied and discouraged from visitation.  The facts appear contrary to their 
assertions.

 

[¶8]      
The first foster home for the child was located in Rawlins, Wyoming, the 
same town in which the parents lived.  
According to the notice of visitation plan, visitation was to occur twice 
weekly, once with the foster mother and once at Project Reach.2  The foster mother's testimony showed the 
parents cancelled most of the visitations scheduled with her.  Ms. Thompson, from Project Reach, 
testified the parents attended the Project Reach class with Minor Child only one 
or two times.  The DFS social worker 
in charge of the case testified that in the first year in which visitation was 
to occur twice weekly, the parents visited Minor Child between eight and ten 
times. 

 

[¶9]      
Approximately one year and two months after Minor Child was removed from 
the parents' home, the parents moved from Rawlins to Cheyenne, Wyoming.  DFS advised the parents such a move 
would make visitation considerably more difficult.  The parents moved anyway.  DFS tried to arrange transportation for 
the parents to come to Rawlins and visit, but the family chose not to take 
advantage of those visitations.  
Furthermore, not only was there no physical visitation, but there was no 
communication through telephone calls, cards, or letters either.  From the record, it appears the last 
visitation with Minor Child was just before the parents left for Cheyenne over 
three years prior to the termination hearing.

 

[¶10]   In June of 
2000, Minor Child was placed in a second foster home.  This foster home was located in 
Cheyenne, with the intent to arrange and facilitate visitation with the 
parents.  However, visitation still 
did not occur.  Testimony indicated 
the parents requested visitation immediately after Minor Child's move to 
Cheyenne.  DFS asked for additional 
time to get Minor Child adjusted to his new home before visitation began.  At that time, Minor Child suffered from 
severe separation anxiety.  When 
visitation did not occur immediately as requested, the parents quit asking.  After that, no arrangement could be made 
for visitation because of the unstable living environment of the parents.  The parents also point to an incident in 
December of 1998, when the parents requested that the child be brought to 
Cheyenne for Christmas.  The foster 
mother could not take Minor Child to Cheyenne at that time so visitation did not 
occur.  These instances do not 
amount to the denial of visitation.  
With the few exceptions provided above, lack of visitation was a direct 
result of the parents' own actions.  
Therefore, on these facts, we find the requirements of  § 14-2-309(a)(i) are shown by clear and 
convincing evidence.  

 

Wyo. Stat. Ann § 14-2-309(a)(iii)

 
    

[¶11]   The second 
ground for termination found by the district court is § 
14-2-309(a)(iii).3  Termination of parental rights pursuant 
to this section requires the petitioner to establish by clear and convincing 
evidence three elements:  
1) abuse or neglect by the parents; 2) unsuccessful reasonable 
efforts to rehabilitate the family; and 3) the child's health and safety 
are seriously jeopardized by remaining with or returning to the parents.  In Re ZKP, 979 P.2d  at 957 
(citing Matter of SYM, 924 P.2d 985, 987 (Wyo. 1996)).  We consider the elements in 
turn.

 

[¶12]   The petition 
does not contain allegations of abuse so we focus our discussion on 
neglect.  "Neglect" means "a failure 
or refusal by those responsible for the child's welfare to provide adequate 
care, maintenance, supervision, education or medical, surgical or any other care 
necessary for the child's well being."  
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-202(a)(vii) (LexisNexis 2001).  

 

[¶13]   While under 
the care of his parents, Minor Child was significantly developmentally 
delayed.  His gross motor skills 
were in the first percentile, and his fine motor skills were in the second 
percentile.  These developmental 
delays were attributed to the parents' failure to provide a nurturing or 
stimulating environment.  Testimony 
revealed that social workers never saw the parents or extended family interact 
with the child, the house was so cluttered and filthy that the child could not 
roll over if placed on the floor, and the child was constantly observed in his 
stroller.  At the age of one, the 
child could not hold up his own head, could not crawl, could not talk, and did 
not know how to use his fingers.  
Furthermore, after a period of placement in foster care, Minor Child 
improved dramatically.  His gross 
motor skills improved to the seventieth percentile and his fine motor skills 
increased to the fifty-second percentile.  
Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the developmental deficiencies 
displayed by Minor Child were the result of neglect by his parents. 

 

[¶14]   Testimony 
showed that the parents did not provide Minor Child with proper nourishment. The 
parents gave Minor Child half-strength formula despite being told repeatedly 
that infants need whole strength formula to provide the nourishment critical for 
brain development and despite being shown numerous times how to properly mix the 
formula.  The parents continually 
gave Minor Child Kool-Aid at two months of age after being advised that Kool-Aid 
was not appropriate for a child that age.  
Against the advice of doctors and numerous service providers, the parents 
also fed the child solid foods at six months of age resulting in hospitalization 
and digestive problems.  

 

[¶15]   Furthermore, 
Minor Child was diagnosed with ear infections for which antibiotics were 
prescribed.  The parents failed to 
fill the prescription, and Minor Child went untreated for three days after 
diagnosis.  Minor Child was 
diagnosed with asthma.  The parents 
were repeatedly cautioned not to smoke around Minor Child because the smoke 
would aggravate his condition.  
However, the parents continued to smoke around Minor Child.  These instances are adequate to show a 
failure to provide adequate care necessary for Minor Child's well being, thus 
neglect.  

 

[¶16]   We now turn 
to the second element, unsuccessful reasonable attempts to rehabilitate the 
family.  When family reunification 
is the case plan goal, DFS has the responsibility reasonably to provide the 
services necessary to accomplish the specific goals and tasks called for before 
reunification can occur.  MB v. 
Laramie County Dep't of Family Servs. in Interest of LB, 933 P.2d 1126, 
1129-30 (Wyo. 1997).  The record is 
filled with instances of DFS meeting this responsibility.  A summary indicates a community-wide 
response by nearly every available resource made up of individuals committed to 
family reunification.  Services 
began months before the birth of Minor Child and continued to be provided.  The organizations providing services to 
this family include soup kitchen, faith-based services, DFS, Public Health, 
Carbon County Extension Office, Project Reach, Carbon County Counseling, 
Southeast Mental Health, Needs, Inc., and the Department of Vocational 
Rehabilitation.  

 

[¶17]   Public Health 
was first assigned to work with the parents when the mother was seven weeks 
pregnant with Minor Child.  While 
providing pre-natal care, the nurses became concerned that the parents' home was 
an unsafe environment for a newborn as the home had no heat or hot water, there 
was garbage everywhere, and the parents were out of food in the middle of the 
month.  This concern led the nurses 
to make a referral to DFS.  DFS took 
immediate action even cleaning the parents' house before the Minor Child was 
brought home from the hospital. 

 

[¶18]   After Minor 
Child was born, DFS provided daily visits trying to teach the parents nutrition, 
scheduling, budgeting, and housekeeping.  
Public Health continued to conduct weekly home visits focusing on the 
child's health.  The nurses 
concentrated on teaching the mother how to care for a newborn child.  They focused on nutrition for the baby, 
teaching the mother how to mix formula for the child.  Even though the mother would say that 
she understood how to mix the formula, and would show the nurse how to do it, on 
follow-up visits, she would be mixing the formula at half strength again. 

 

[¶19]   The parents 
claim the instructions and the case plan goals were too complicated, and they 
were unable to understand them.  
Yet, the evidence presented at trial describes how the agencies all 
utilized simplistic incremental steps in teaching the parents.  For instance, Lori Olson, a DFS home 
service aid, was in the home almost every day for three months going over and 
over cooking and nutrition.  
Testimony at trial detailed the extensive attempts made to equip these 
parents with the skills they needed to effectively raise their child.  Nevertheless, the parents seemed to 
resist the rehabilitative efforts.  
Depending on the service, they missed thirty to fifty percent of their 
pre-set appointments.  While Minor 
Child was in the home, the parents made no significant progress and failed to 
follow through with most of the programs.  

 

[¶20]   After Minor 
Child had been removed from the home, both parents submitted to psychological 
evaluations, which revealed the mother as possessing borderline intellectual 
functioning, and the father only slightly higher.  Specifically, the mother was evaluated 
as being overwhelmed by trying to accomplish multiple goals at one time.  While those facts were not presented by 
the State as a basis for termination, the parents rely upon them to show that 
there was no refusal of rehabilitative treatment, but rather an inability to 
understand the demands made by the State in the case plan for family 
reunification.   

 

[¶21]   Yet, after 
this evaluation, the record is full of further instances of teaching in 
incremental steps, one task at a time.  
The lengths to which the service providers went to assist the parents in 
achieving the case plan goals indicates the use of every feasible education 
approach to teach the parents in elementary steps.  Attempts were made to instruct this 
family over five years on a weekly, and at times daily, basis. The case plan had 
eleven headings, but the goals related to each heading were never worked on all 
at once.  These eleven headings 
included very specific elementary steps like enroll and attend parenting 
classes, enroll and attend counseling, find a preschool for Minor Child, and 
arrange transportation.  
Furthermore, the mother testified that some of these tasks the parents 
already knew how to do.  

 

[¶22]   The 
psychological evaluation further indicated that with the proper monitoring both 
parents could learn parenting skills over time if motivated, interested, 
and willing to take the time to learn.  But the parents placed no importance on 
learning or implementing the tasks required to provide a safe environment for 
their son.  They seemed 
non-cooperative and resistant to all efforts.  For instance, when learning how to clean 
their house, they would just sit and watch the in-home aid clean.   They never cleaned for themselves 
even though they understood how.  
When the in-home aid returned the next time, the house would be worse 
than before.  The mother even stated 
that DFS has a stack of files on the parent's lack of effort. 

 

[¶23]   We don't know 
of any other approach that could have been utilized.  There is a limit to what we ask of DFS 
in the absence of parental cooperation. We have previously recognized that at 
some point rehabilitative efforts become unreasonable.   "[I]t would seem unreasonable and 
not for the best interests of the child that professional welfare workers should 
be furnished to care for this child in the parental home on a twenty-four-hour 
basis for the many years until the child herself can be self-sufficient."  Matter of C.M., 556 P.2d 514, 519 
(Wyo. 1976).  The record indicates 
that the parents, even after four years of training, instruction, and 
supervision, would not be able to care for the child without further 
instruction.  We are not penalizing 
the parents for lack of mental capacity, we are simply considering the best 
interests and welfare of the child.  
Id., at 517.  The 
parents have failed to take advantage of the services provided to them, failed 
to meaningfully participate in the case plan, and failed to implement what they 
have learned.  Thus, we find the 
evidence was clear and convincing that the reasonable rehabilitative efforts 
were unsuccessful.  

 

[¶24]   Finally, we 
consider the last element of § 14-2-309(a)(iii), that the child's health and 
safety would be seriously jeopardized should he be returned to the parents' 
custody.  The parents, after all 
this time, show no willingness to respond to the needs of their child.  They are unable to consistently provide 
appropriate housing, food, clothing, and medical treatment.  They believe the lifestyle they provided 
in the first year of Minor Child's life is a proper environment.  This lifestyle was described at trial as 
"survival mode," and it remains substantially the same.  The parents have no stable home or 
consistent environment and seem to depend on public assistance for their own 
basic living essentials.  They 
require intensive external resources in the home to maintain a safe environment 
for the child; but, as discussed above, those have failed.    

 

[¶25]   The State 
provided evidence to show the parents incapable of properly caring for their 
child.  Dr. Martha Schilling, a 
psychologist who evaluated the parents in the spring of 1997, testified:  "I did not think that there was a very 
good prognosis for the couple together being able to provide a safe 
environment."  She further stated 
that the parents do not have the stability to care for Minor Child and it would 
be detrimental to him to leave his foster home to live with total 
strangers.  We find clear and 
convincing evidence to show this final element.

 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v)

 
    

[¶26]   The last 
ground alleged in the petition is § 14-2-309(a)(v), "[t]he 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[.]"  At the time of trial, Minor Child had 
been in foster care for forty-two continuous months.  As we indicated above, the evidence 
showed that the parents were unfit to have custody or control of Minor 
Child.  We find this ground for 
termination was also proved by clear and convincing evidence.

 

[¶27]   We are not 
unsympathetic to the disabilities and hardships of the parents.  However, this case demonstrates a 
situation in which the best interest of the child and the fundamental rights of 
the parents diverge.  While we 
zealously guard the fundamental right of parents to care for and associate with 
their children, we also recognize that a child has the fundamental right to live 
in an environment free from filth, health hazards, and danger; he also has the 
right to nourishment, education, and necessary medical attention.  Matter of MLM, 682 P.2d 982, 990 
(Wyo. 1984).  "When the rights of a 
parent and the rights of a child are on a collision course, the rights of the 
parent must yield."  Id.  

 

CONCLUSION
 

[¶28]   For the 
reasons stated above we find that there was clear and convincing evidence 
presented to support the termination of parental rights.  We, therefore, affirm the judgment of 
the district court.
 

FOOTNOTES

1Because 
the issues raised by the parents are essentially challenges to the factual 
findings of the trial court, further facts will be included in the body of this 
opinion.

2Project 
Reach is a program that screens and evaluates motor skills, language skills, and 
speech.  The program also helps 
parents learn how to interact, stimulate, and provide therapy to developmentally 
challenged toddlers.

3Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309 (a)(iii) reads:

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[.]