Title: M.S.H. v. A.L.H.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MSH v. ALH2012 WY 29Case Number: S-11-0179Decided: 02/29/2012NOTICE: 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.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2011
 
MSH,Appellant 
(Defendant),v.ALH,Appellee 
(Plaintiff).
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Carbon County
The 
Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge 
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Donna 
D. Domonkos, Domonkos Law Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
John 
M. Burman, Faculty Supervisor, and Sarah Chavez, Student Intern, UW Legal 
Services Program.  Argument by Ms. 
Chavez.
 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.
 
VOIGT, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      The district 
court terminated the appellant’s (father’s) parental rights to his three 
children, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv) (LexisNexis 2011), after 
finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was incarcerated for a felony 
conviction and was unfit to have the custody and control of the children.  In this appeal, the father claims the 
district court erred when it allowed a police report to be introduced into 
evidence, and when the officer who wrote the report testified consistently with 
the report and allegedly vouched for the credibility of a victim.  He also argues that the appellee 
(mother) failed to produce clear and convincing evidence that father was unfit 
to care for his children.  Finding 
no error, we affirm.
 
ISSUES
 
[¶2]      1.    Whether Officer Dunn’s 
testimony and the admission of his report into evidence was plain 
error.
 
2.    Whether Officer Dunn’s 
testimony regarding the credibility of the victim’s statement was plain 
error.
 
3.    Whether mother presented 
clear and convincing evidence that father was unfit to have the custody and 
control of his children.
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      Father and mother 
were married in Texas in 2001.  The 
couple had three children:  BH was 
born in 2001; SH was born in 2003, and EH was born in 2004.  Shortly after EH was born, father began 
serving a ten-year term of imprisonment after pleading guilty to aggravated 
sexual assault of a minor.  The 
incident to which he pleaded guilty occurred in 1999, before his marriage to 
mother, and involved him engaging in the sexual abuse of his then girlfriend’s 
six-year-old learning disabled daughter.
 
[¶4]      In December of 
2009, mother filed a petition to terminate father’s parental rights to BH, SH, 
and EH.  The district court held a 
hearing and, thereafter, entered an order terminating father’s parental 
rights.  The district court 
concluded that mother had presented clear and convincing evidence that father 
was incarcerated for a felony conviction and that he was unfit to have custody 
and control of the children.  In 
addition to considering the circumstances surrounding father’s felony 
conviction, the court found that father had provided no financial or physical 
support for the children, and his incarceration made him unable to be a parent 
since 2004.  The court further found 
that, by the time father is guaranteed release from prison, he will have missed 
the majority of the children’s childhood years.  Father now appeals that 
order.
 
 
DISCUSSION
 
Whether 
Officer Dunn’s testimony and the admission of his report into evidence was plain 
error
 
[¶5]      At the 
termination hearing, Officer Dunn, who investigated the charges to which father 
pleaded guilty, testified about the investigation.  Early on in his testimony, the police 
report he made regarding the incident was introduced and admitted into evidence 
without objection.  Father now 
claims that admission of the report into evidence was error, as the report was 
hearsay and the information within the report was also based upon hearsay.  He also asserts that Officer Dunn’s 
testimony, consistent with the report, was based upon 
hearsay.
 
[¶6]      This issue is 
being raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, we will review for 
plain error.  Walker v. State, 2012 WY 1, ¶ 6, 267 P.3d 1107, 1110 (Wyo. 2012); see also 
WR v. Natrona Cnty. Dep’t of Family 
Servs. (In re interest of DG), 916 P.2d 991, 998 (Wyo. 1996) (discussing the 
use of plain error when a party raised the constitutionality of the termination 
of parental rights statute for the first time on appeal).  In order to show plain error, the party 
alleging error must demonstrate:  
“1) the record is clear about the incident alleged as error, 2) there was 
a transgression of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, and 3) the party 
claiming error was denied a substantial right which materially prejudiced 
him.”  Walker, 2012 WY 1, ¶ 6, 267 P.3d  at 1110 
(citations omitted).
 
[¶7]      Here, while the 
record is clear that the report was admitted into evidence, we need not 
determine whether a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated because 
father has failed to prove that, if there was error, it was prejudicial.  In order for a parent’s rights to be 
terminated, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv), there must be a 
showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the parent is incarcerated due 
to a felony conviction.  While 
Officer Dunn’s report and testimony certainly informed the district court of the 
factual background regarding the allegations against father in the criminal 
case, his report and testimony were not necessary to establish that father was 
incarcerated due to a felony conviction.  
Father’s own testimony established that to be the case, including that 
the crime was aggravated sexual assault of a minor. 
 
[¶8]      We also find that 
father has failed to show he was prejudiced to the extent the district court may 
have considered the facts underlying the crime as a basis for finding father 
unfit.  While Officer Dunn’s 
testimony and the report informed the district court that the father’s then 
live-in girlfriend’s daughter was the victim, the victim was disabled, the 
victim called father “Daddy,” and the assault took place at night when the 
victim’s mother was at work, the bulk of this information was also disclosed in 
father’s testimony.  Father 
testified that he was in an intimate relationship with the victim’s mother, that 
he lived with the victim and her mother, that he was a father figure to the 
victim, and that the victim called him “Daddy” at times.  Although father did not testify that the 
victim was disabled or that the assault took place at night while the victim’s 
mother was at work, we do not find that the omission of those facts would have 
resulted in a different outcome.  
Therefore, father has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by 
Officer Dunn’s testimony and the admission of his report and, thereby, has 
failed to carry his burden under the plain error standard of 
review.
 
Whether 
Officer Dunn’s testimony regarding thecredibility of the victim’s statement 
was plain error
 
[¶9]      Father claims 
that Officer Dunn vouched for the victim’s credibility, thereby causing him 
prejudice.  Again, this claim is 
being raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, will be reviewed for 
plain error.  Walker, 2012 WY 1, ¶ 6, 267 P.3d  at 
1110.  While the record clearly 
shows the incident father alleges was error, just as above, he has failed to 
demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the allegedly erroneous 
testimony.
 
[¶10]   Father claims that Officer Dunn’s 
testimony was introduced to prove that father was actually guilty of the crime 
for which he pleaded guilty.  
However, at this point in time, the question of whether father actually 
committed the crime for which he pleaded guilty is not relevant.  What is relevant is that he was 
convicted of sexually abusing a child and that he is serving a term of 
incarceration for that conviction.  
See Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 14-2-309(a)(iv).  

 
[¶11]   Further, despite the fact that 
father maintains he did not commit the crime, the district court properly relied 
upon that guilty plea and conviction as a factor when determining whether father 
was unfit to have custody of his children.  
While father certainly could have attempted to mitigate his conviction by 
introducing evidence that he entered the plea without accepting responsibility, 
he did not do so.  Instead of 
presenting the transcript from his change of plea hearing or the judgment and 
sentence entered after his guilty plea, he simply testified that he did not 
plead guilty but, instead, “accepted a plea agreement.”  The district court obviously did not 
give father’s self-serving testimony much credence, and there is nothing in the 
record that would show the district court’s belief that father was guilty of the 
crime was erroneous.  Therefore, 
father has failed to demonstrate plain error.
 
Whether 
mother presented clear and convincingevidence that father was unfit to have 
the custodyand control of his children
 
[¶12]   Father claims that mother failed to 
prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was unfit to have the custody and 
control of his children, as required by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv).  When reviewing whether sufficient 
evidence was presented to terminate parental rights, we use our traditional 
sufficiency of the evidence review:
 
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.  This Court then reviews the supporting 
evidence to ascertain if it clearly and convincingly satisfies the statutory 
elements required to support termination.  
Evidence is clear and convincing if it would persuade a trier of fact 
that the truth of the contention is highly probable.  This Court may examine all of the 
properly admissible evidence in the record, but we do not reweigh the 
evidence.  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 parental 
rights.
 
JLW 
v. CAB (In re WDW), 
2010 WY 9, ¶ 17, 224 P.3d 14, 19 (Wyo. 2010) (internal citations 
omitted).
 
[¶13]   As we recognized in JLW, the termination statutes do not 
define the term “unfit.”  Id. at ¶ 19, at 19.   However, we have determined that 
“fitness includes the ability to meet the ongoing physical, mental and emotional 
needs of the child.”  R.L.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs. (In 
re L.A.), 2009 WY 109, ¶ 14, 215 P.3d 266, 269 (Wyo. 2009).  “Whether a parent is fit to have custody 
and control of a child is a decision that must be made within the context of a 
particular case and depends upon the situation and attributes of the specific 
parent and child.”  JLW, 2010 WY 9, ¶ 19, 224 P.3d  at 
19.
 
[¶14]   The district court’s decision to 
terminate father’s parental rights was based on several different factors.  First, the court expressed concern about 
father’s conviction and the likelihood of recidivism.  These concerns were based upon the fact 
that father and the victim had a relationship similar to one of a father and 
daughter and that he has refused to take any responsibility for his 
actions.  The court also noted that 
father’s contacts with his children have been sparse and, while his 
incarceration made contact difficult, there was little evidence to show he made 
an effort to show love and support for his children.  The court also found that father has had 
absolutely no contact with the children since December of 
2009.
 
[¶15]   Father spends a considerable amount 
of time focusing on all the evidence presented at trial that demonstrates that 
he is not an unfit parent, contrary to the district court’s conclusion.  However, acceptance of his argument 
would require us to ignore the applicable standard of review and, instead, 
reweigh all of the evidence presented to the district court.  As in the past, we decline to use that 
approach.  See Garner v. State, 2011 WY 156, ¶ 20, 264 P.3d 811, 820 (Wyo. 2011) (“As we have often repeated, our standard of review 
for determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction does not 
permit us to reweigh evidence[.]”).
 
[¶16]   Using the proper standard of 
review, which requires us to review the evidence in the light most favorable to 
the prevailing party and to disregard any conflicting evidence presented by the 
unsuccessful party, we find that clear and convincing evidence was presented to 
support the district court’s decision to terminate father’s parental 
rights.  Mother testified that, 
before father was incarcerated, although he was making $400-500 per week, he did 
not financially contribute to the household in any way, and that she solely paid 
for the groceries, rent, and all other living expenses with the money she 
received from social security.  She 
also testified that when father was not working, he spent his time at home 
sleeping and not helping her raise the children.  Thus, the record demonstrates that, even 
before he was incarcerated, father, although capable, did not provide 
financially for his family.  
Further, by choosing to spend little time with his children, he chose not 
to provide physical, mental, or emotional support.  Since father has been incarcerated, he 
and his family have not provided financially for his children, save ten or 
twenty dollars.  Additionally, since 
2004, father had only called the children approximately five times.  The last time he spoke with any of his 
children was in December of 2009. 
 
[¶17]   The record also demonstrates that 
father is currently incarcerated for sexually assaulting a child.  While father’s conviction alone is not 
per se evidence of unfitness, it is “a reality that severely impacts the 
parent-child relationship and therefore cannot be ignored.”  CDB v. DJE, 2005 WY 102, ¶ 6, 118 P.3d 439, 441 (Wyo. 2005).  The facts 
surrounding the conviction to which he pleaded guilty showed the victim was 
father’s girlfriend’s six-year-old daughter, who referred to father as 
“Daddy.”  Further, even after 
spending a considerable amount of time incarcerated, father still maintains that 
he did nothing wrong and that his sole reason for wanting to take a sex offender 
rehabilitation class is so that he may be released on parole.  Finally, father’s guaranteed release 
date is not until 2014, at which point he will have been almost totally absent 
from his children’s lives for over half of their childhood 
years.
 
[¶18]   The evidence viewed in the light 
most favorable to mother shows that father has never been an active parent in 
the children’s lives and failed to ever provide financially for his family.  That trend has continued while father 
has been incarcerated, and when he is guaranteed release, he will have missed a 
substantial portion of the children’s minority.  The district court’s concerns regarding 
father’s conviction are also supported by the record.  Father was convicted of committing an 
incredibly serious act against a child and has failed to take any responsibility 
for his actions.  Therefore, we find 
that clear and convincing evidence was presented to support the district court’s 
decision to terminate father’s parental rights. 
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶19]   After a careful review of the 
record, we find that plain error did not occur during Officer Dunn’s testimony 
or when his police report was introduced into evidence.  We also find that the record contains 
clear and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s decision to 
terminate father’s parental rights.  

 
[¶20]   We affirm.