Title: In re A.R.C.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF THE PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: ARC anf RMR, Minor Children,  TMC v. THE STATE OF WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2011 WY 119Case Number: No. S-10-0254Decided: 08/22/2011NOTICE: 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 any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2011

 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO:  

ARC 
and RMR, Minor Children,TMC,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:

Gregory 
L. Winn, Laramie, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Gregory 
A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney 
General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Ms. 
Cooley.

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

 
 
KITE, 
Chief Justice.

            

[¶1]      TMC (Mother) 
appeals from the district court's order terminating her parental rights to ARC 
and RMR.  She claims the State of 
Wyoming, Department of Family Services (DFS) failed to present clear and 
convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the family, 
the children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by returning the 
children to her, or that she was unfit to have care and custody of the 
children.   

 

[¶2]      We affirm. 

 
 
ISSUES

 
 
[¶3]      Mother presents 
the following issues on appeal:

 
 

1.    
Whether 
[DFS] proved, by clear and convincing evidence that [Mother] was an unfit 
parent?

 
 

2.    
Whether 
[DFS] proved, by clear and convincing evidence that [it] made reasonable efforts 
[to] rehabilitate the family as required by W.S. § 
14-2-309(a)(iii)?

 
 

3.    
Whether 
[DFS] proved, by clear and convincing evidence that the children's health and 
safety would be seriously jeopardized if they returned to 
[Mother]?

 
 
DFS's 
statement of the issues on appeal is similar. 

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶4]      Mother has 
two children, ARC and RMR.  In March 
2008, she and the children were living with JKR, who is the father of RMR, in 
his home in Mills, Wyoming.  JKR's 
daughter from another relationship, TRR, was also living in the home.  At that time, ARC was not quite three 
years old, RMR was thirteen months old, and TRR was five years old.     

 
 
[¶5]      Mills police 
officers attempted to serve a warrant on a person they thought lived in a 
trailer house located on the same property as JKR's house.  When no one answered at the trailer, 
they went to JKR's house to inquire about the trailer's occupants.  TRR answered the door and indicated to 
the officers that she and ARC were home alone.  Concerned about the children being left 
unsupervised, the officers called DFS, which sent an investigator to the 
residence.    

 
 
[¶6]      The officers and 
DFS investigator entered the residence and immediately observed illegal drugs 
and drug paraphernalia in the living room where the children had been watching 
television.  The officers went 
through the rest of the house to see if there were other children.  They found JKR asleep in the back 
bedroom.  He was taken into custody 
and the house was searched for further evidence of drugs.  Law enforcement found more drugs, drug 
paraphernalia, a large amount of cash, and a stolen firearm.  

 
 
[¶7]      While the 
officers were at the house, Mother arrived with RMR.  DFS took all three children into 
protective custody and placed them in foster care.  The parents were alleged to have 
neglected the children by exposing them to illegal drugs and drug 
paraphernalia.  The neglect 
allegations were substantiated by DFS, and the parents eventually stipulated to 
an adjudication that they had neglected the children.              

 
 
[¶8]      DFS and Mother 
agreed to a family service plan, dated May 29, 2008, and amended on June 23, 
2008, which stated the permanency goal as family reunification and required her 
to submit to urinary analyses (UA) six times per week; complete a substance 
abuse assessment and comply with its recommendations; establish safe and stable 
housing suitable for the children; find and maintain legal employment; attend 
parenting classes and domestic violence counseling; and attend visitation and 
school and medical appointments with the children. 

 
 
[¶9]      Mother performed 
very few of the tasks on the family service plan.  She missed many UAs, and of those she 
submitted, many were positive for illegal substances.   Although she completed the 
substance abuse assessment, she did not comply with its recommendation of 
intensive outpatient treatment.  She 
also did not provide any documentation showing she had attended parenting or 
domestic violence classes or had obtained legal employment.  She did attend some visits with the 
children, although not nearly as many as were scheduled by DFS.   

 
 
[¶10]   A second family service plan was 
executed on October 29, 2008.  That 
plan listed the permanency goal as family reunification, but also stated a 
concurrent goal of guardianship or adoption.  This plan required Mother to attend an 
intensive outpatient substance abuse program until she could get into inpatient 
treatment; immediately establish a bed date for inpatient substance abuse 
treatment; complete inpatient treatment and follow all recommendations, 
including aftercare; and submit to UAs six times per week.  The other requirements of the plan 
remained the sameattend parenting and domestic violence classes/counseling; 
attend all visitations; establish a safe and stable home; and secure and 
maintain legal employment.  She was 
required to provide DFS with documentation of her compliance with these 
requirements.    

 
 
[¶11]   The children were originally placed 
in non-relative foster care; however, they were transferred to foster care with 
relatives in January 2009.  One of 
the permanency options was for the relative placement to become a 
guardianship.  However, that 
situation did not work out and the children were transferred back to the 
original foster family in August 2009, where they have remained.    

 
 
[¶12]   Because Mother continued to fail to 
follow the requirements of her family service plan, the district court approved 
a permanency plan after a review hearing on April 22, 
2009, which provided for termination of her parental rights and 
guardianship or adoption of the children.  
Finally, on June 3, 2009, Mother entered inpatient substance abuse 
treatment.  She did not, however, 
complete the program.  The State 
filed petitions to terminate her parental rights to ARC and RMR on August 21, 
2009.  The termination actions were 
consolidated, and, after an evidentiary hearing, the district court terminated 
Mother's parental rights to ARC and RMR.  
Mother appealed.        

 
 
 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶13]   Mother challenges the sufficiency 
of the evidence to support the district court's decision to terminate her 
parental rights.

 
 
[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, 
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).  

 
 
[¶14]   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

 
 
[¶15]   The termination action against 
Mother was based upon Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v) (LexisNexis 
2011): 

 
 
(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:

. 
. . .

            
(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;

. 
. . .

            
(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[.]

 
 
 
 

A.   Section 
14-2-309(a)(iii)

 
 
[¶16]   DFS is charged with proving three 
elements in order to justify a termination action under § 14-2-309(a)(iii): "(1) 
abusive treatment or neglect by 
the parent; (2) unsuccessful [reasonable] efforts to rehabilitate the family; 
and (3) the child's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by remaining with or 
returning to the parent."  RS v. 
Dep't of Family Servs., 2004 WY 87, ¶ 12, 94 P.3d 1025, 1028 (Wyo. 
2004).  See also, CL, ¶ 11, 151 P.3d  at 1105.  The district court ruled on each of the 
elements as follows:

 
 
            
9.         
Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii), the Court finds by clear 
and convincing evidence that the children have been neglected by [Mother].  [Mother] failed to provide adequate care 
for the children.  She left the 
children in the care of [JKR], in a home that contained many hazards including 
drug paraphernalia, drug residue, pill bottles, and needles in reach of the 
children.  Additionally, [Mother] 
failed to comply with her case plan.

            

10.       The Court 
finds that clear and convincing evidence has been presented to show, pursuant to 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii), reasonable efforts by the authorized agency 
or mental health professional have been unsuccessful in rehabilitating the 
family or the family has refused rehabilitative treatment.  [Mother] was provided with various 
components and assistance, and [she] has failed to recognize her own issues and 
addictions, and has failed to complete drug treatment, and domestic violence 
counseling.  

            

11.       The Court 
further finds by clear and convincing evidence that the children's health and 
safety would be seriously jeopardized by remaining with or returning them to 
[Mother].  [Mother] still has not 
completed drug treatment.  Her 
assertion of abstinence from drug use is suspect.  The children had many issues when they 
came into care, but have shown a change for the better in the absence of being 
in the home of [Mother].  [Mother] 
has shown a failure to recognize her drug addiction and issues.  

 
 
[¶17]   Mother does not challenge the 
finding of neglect on appeal.  
Indeed, she stipulated to an adjudication of neglect in June 2008.  Mother does challenge the district 
court's finding that clear and convincing evidence showed DFS provided 
reasonable efforts to rehabilitate her.  
The record reflects that DFS prepared two family service plans for 
Mother.  The plans included 
provisions for Mother to obtain and maintain sobriety, including substance abuse 
assessment, treatment and UAs to monitor her progress.  DFS assisted her with obtaining the 
assessment and making arrangements for intensive outpatient treatment.  Although Mother completed the 
assessment, she did not complete her intensive outpatient program and was 
terminated, twice.  In addition, DFS 
attempted to help her obtain a bed date for inpatient treatment, but she did not 
follow through until June of 2009.    

 
 
[¶18]   DFS entered into a contract with a 
drug testing service for Mother to undergo UAs six times per week, but she 
appeared for testing only occasionally.  
The family service plans provided for Mother to complete parenting 
classes and domestic violence counseling.  
She did not, however, avail herself of those opportunities.  In addition, DFS provided other services 
to the children and Mother, including multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, 
foster care, counseling, and supervised visitation.  

 
 
[¶19]   Mother challenges the 
reasonableness of DFS's efforts by stating that DFS did not maintain the UA drug 
testing contract after December 2008, did not tell her about the children's 
school and medical appointments, did not hold an MDT meeting for over a year, 
and did not inspect her house to see the work she had done to make it suitable 
for the children.  The record does 
not support Mother's assertion that these factors mandated a finding that DFS's 
efforts were not reasonable.  

 
 
[¶20]   DFS's contract for Mother's UA 
testing expired in December 2008.  
It was reasonable for DFS not to renew it considering she appeared for 
testing so infrequently.  An 
employee of the drug testing service testified that Mother could have made her 
own arrangements for drug testing even after the contract was terminated, but 
did not.  Further, Mother does not 
direct us to any evidence in the record indicating she requested that DFS 
continue the drug testing contract.  

 
 
[¶21]   As Mother points out, there was 
evidence that DFS did not always provide her with information about the 
children's school and medical appointments and it failed to hold an MDT meeting 
for over a year, from January 7, 2009 to March 22, 2010.  Even if we assume DFS could have done 
more in those respects, we cannot state that its overall efforts were 
unreasonable.  Mother apparently did 
not request that the MDT be convened and although she had the opportunity to 
meet with at least some of the team members at court hearings on April 22, 2009 
and October 9, 2009 she did not attend the hearings.  We conclude, therefore, her complaints 
in this regard are somewhat disingenuous.  

 
 
[¶22]   Finally, Mother claims DFS did not 
make reasonable efforts because it did not inspect her house to determine if it 
was safe and suitable for the children.  
She testified that she had done some work on the house to make it more 
comfortable for the children.  The 
DFS case worker testified that, had Mother complied with the other parts of her 
family service plan, DFS would have inspected her home when it started the 
reunification process.  Until the 
time when actual family reunification was drawing closer, there was no reason to 
inspect her home.  Under these 
circumstances, the district court properly concluded that DFS presented clear 
and convincing evidence it made reasonable efforts to reunite her with the 
children.

 
 
[¶23]   Mother makes an additional argument 
regarding DFS's efforts at reunifying her with the children.  She claims DFS did not show that it 
attempted means less intrusive than termination of parental rights.  In particular, she asserts DFS should 
have instituted a guardianship proceeding instead of terminating her parental 
rights.  

 
 
[¶24]   Under the strict scrutiny standard 
applicable to parental rights termination actions, the state is required to use 
the least intrusive means to accomplish the goal of protecting the children. 
 See, e.g., LDC v. Dep't of Family Servs., 979 P.2d 953, 958 (Wyo. 1999); DKM v. RJS, 924 P.2d 985, 987-88 (Wyo. 1996); TR v. 
Washakie County Dep't of Public Assistance and Social Servs., 736 P.2d 712, 
718 (Wyo. 1987).  Mother argues that 
DFS was required to pursue guardianship because it was less intrusive on her 
fundamental right to family association than termination of her parental 
rights.  We have never determined 
whether guardianship is a less intrusive alternative to termination, see, e.g., AJJ v. State of Wyo., Dep't of Family 
Servs., 2010 WY 142, ¶ 21 n.1, 242 P.3d 968, 973 n.1 (Wyo. 2010) (stating 
that it was unnecessary to resolve the issue in that case), and it is 
unnecessary to resolve the issue here because it is clear that DFS did, at one 
point, pursue a guardianship with relatives.  

 
 
[¶25]   The foster mother in the relative 
placement testified that she and her husband offered to pay the legal fees to 
have the guardianship established.  That never came to fruition because the 
relatives' biological daughter had trouble adapting to having the foster 
children in their home.  
Nevertheless, it is clear that the guardianship option was considered and 
pursued.  Mother does not direct us 
to any evidence that she specifically requested guardianship be considered after 
that.  Under these circumstances, 
DFS did not fail to pursue less intrusive means of protecting the children.  

 
 
[¶26]   The last element of a subsection 
(iii) action requires a clear and convincing showing that the health and safety 
of the children would be seriously jeopardized by returning them to Mother.  As we have already explained, Mother did 
not complete any aspect of her family service plans.  The reason the children were removed 
from the home in the first place involved the parents' use of illegal drugs, 
including marijuana and methamphetamine, and the fact that drugs and 
paraphernalia were found in the house within reach of the children.  Thus, the family service plans focused 
on addressing the drug issue.  

 
 
[¶27]   Mother was directed to demonstrate 
that she was not using illegal drugs by submitting to UAs six times per 
week.  Over a several month period, 
she only occasionally showed up for UAs, many of which were positive for illegal 
drug use.  Mother testified that she 
had not used drugs since the end of May 2009, but she did not submit any 
objective evidence of that.  The 
district court specifically found her credibility as to her sobriety was 
suspect.  Our standard of review 
requires that we defer to the district court's findings of credibility because 
it has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witness.  AJJ, ¶ 20, 242 P.3d  at 
972.

 
 
[¶28]   In order to address her substance 
abuse problem, Mother was directed to undergo treatment, both intensive 
outpatient and inpatient.  She was 
terminated twice from the intensive outpatient program for failing to attend 
sessions.  Although she eventually 
went to inpatient treatment, she did not do so until June 2009, many months 
after the family service plan required her to attend.  Even then, she did not fully engage in 
the program and failed to complete it.  
Her discharge summary stated that her prognosis was "extremely poor . . . 
due to her lack of willingness to accept responsibility  and practice the recovery skills needed 
to maintain a long-term, quality sobriety."  There was no evidence that she entered 
any type of treatment program after her unsuccessful stint at inpatient 
treatment.  

 
 
[¶29]   Mother argues that a parent's use 
of illegal drugs is not a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights and 
directs us to State of Wyoming, Dep't of 
Family Servs. v. TWE, 2009 WY 155, 222 P.3d 142 (Wyo. 2009) as support for 
her position.  In that case, the 
district court denied DFS's petition to terminate the father's parental 
rights.  DFS refused to return the 
children to the father, in part, because of his continuing use of 
marijuana.  Id., ¶¶ 8-9, 222 P.3d  at 144.  The district court noted, and we agreed, 
that his marijuana use did not support termination because "the initial reason 
for DFS involvement with this family was not related to [the father's] marijuana 
use.  It was due to the continued 
failure of the parents to provide sanitary living conditions and provide prompt 
and appropriate medical/dental care for the children."  Id., ¶¶ 19, 22, 222 P.3d  at 147-48.  The evidence at the hearing established 
that the father's current home was appropriate and clean and the State had not 
demonstrated that the father's use of marijuana would seriously jeopardize the 
health and safety of the children.  
Id., ¶ 21, 222 P.3d  at 
147.  

 
 
[¶30]   
TWE is distinguishable from the case at bar.  Here, the children were removed because 
the parents' drug use presented a health and safety concern for the 
children.  That issue had not been 
addressed by Mother at the time of the hearing.  Unlike in TWE, there was an obvious connection 
between the welfare of the children and Mother's drug use.  Wyoming law specifically recognizes the 
danger to children from illegal drugs, especially methamphetamine, which was 
Mother's drug of choice.  Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 6-4-405 (LexisNexis 2011) makes it a crime to allow children to remain in 
a dwelling where methamphetamine is possessed.  See generally, Butz v. State, 2007 WY 152, 167 P.3d 650 
(Wyo. 2007) (overruled on other grounds).  
Given the prevalence of methamphetamine (and other drugs) in the home 
when the children were taken into custody and Mother's unwillingness to properly 
address her substance abuse problem, her drug use was an appropriate basis for DFS 
intervention and termination of her parental rights.  

 
 
[¶31]   DFS presented several witnesses at 
the termination hearing who opined about whether it would be safe to return the 
children to Mother.  The DFS case 
worker testified that she would be concerned about the children's health and 
safety if they were returned to Mother because, in addition to other things, she 
did not know if Mother was free of drugs and could care for the children.  Leslie Murtagh, an advance practice 
child and adolescent psychiatric nurse, assessed and treated ARC and the older 
child in the household, TRR.  When 
Ms. Murtagh was asked about whether it was safe for ARC to return to Mother's 
care, she stated it would be detrimental to his emotional well being.  Jack Watters, the case manager for Court 
Appointed Special Advocates of Natrona County (CASA), testified that, based upon 
his training and experience, it would not be possible to place the children back 
with Mother because of her failure to comply with the family service plans.  Both women who had been foster mothers 
to the children testified that the children would be harmed by returning to 
Mother.          

 
 
[¶32]   All in all, the record 
demonstrates, especially with regard to Mother's use and dependency on illegal 
drugs, nothing had changed from the time the children were removed from the home 
in March 2008 until the hearing in May 2010.  While she claimed that she was not using 
illegal substances, the district court doubted her veracity about her drug use 
and there was absolutely no objective evidence in the record to support her 
claim.  Moreover, and of equal 
importance, she had not successfully completed treatment to address the 
underlying issues that led to her substance abuse problem in the first 
place.  The record, therefore, 
supports the district court's conclusion that DFS proved by clear and convincing 
evidence the children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by 
returning to Mother.

 
 
 
 

B.   Section 
14-2-309(a)(v)

 
 
[¶33]   Our conclusion that the district 
court properly terminated Mother's parental rights under § 14-2-309(a)(iii) is 
dispositive because "[p]arental rights may be terminated on a finding of just 
one of the stated subsections enunciated in § 14-2-309."  MN, ¶ 31, 78 P.3d  at 239.  However, we will briefly address the 
other basis for termination, § 14-2-309(a)(v).    

 
 
[¶34]   Under § 14-2-309(a)(v), DFS was 
required to prove two elements:  the 
children had been in foster care under the State's responsibility for at least 
fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months; and the Mother was unfit to have 
custody and control of them.  CL, ¶ 12, 151 P.3d  at 1106.  See also, AJJ, ¶¶ 13-14, 242 P.3d  at 970.  There is no dispute regarding the first 
element.  At the time of the 
hearing, the children had been in foster care under the State's responsibility 
for nearly twenty-six months.  Our 
focus, then, is on the district court's finding that Mother was unfit to have 
custody and control of the children.   

 
 
[¶35]   In RLA v. State of Wyo., Dep't of Family 
Servs., 2009 WY 109, ¶ 14, 215 P.3d 266, 269 (Wyo. 2009), we stated, in the 
context of a parental rights termination case, "fitness includes the ability to 
meet the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of the child."  Finding Mother was unfit to have custody 
and control of the children, the district court correctly stated that the same 
factors which supported a finding that the children's health and safety would be 
seriously jeopardized if they were returned to Mother supported a finding that 
she was unfit.  See, e.g., MN, ¶¶ 28-33, 78 P.3d at 238-39; CL, ¶ 12, 151 P.3d  at 1106 (considering 
the last elements of subsections (iii) and (v) together).  However, the district court also found 
that the youngest child, RMR, has a serious medical condition that requires 
close monitoring and failure to meet her special needs would place her at 
greater risk.  At the time DFS took 
the children into custody, ACR's and RMR's weights were low for their ages.  While they were in foster care their 
percentiles raised significantly, indicating that their environment played a 
strong role in their overall health conditions.  Given that history and Mother's drug 
use, it was understandable that the district court would be concerned RMR's 
medical condition may not be sufficiently monitored or treated by Mother.  The district court properly found there 
was clear and convincing evidence that Mother's parental rights should be 
terminated under §14-2-309(a)(v).

 
 
[¶36]   Affirmed.  

            

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1The parental rights of the fathers of ARC and RMR were also terminated.