Title: CDB, JR. V. DJE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

CDB, JR. V. DJE2005 WY 102118 P.3d 439Case Number: C-04-14Decided: 08/25/2005
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2005

 
 
CDB, 
JR.,

 
 
Appellant

(Respondent),

 
 
v.

 
 
DJE,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner).

 
 
 
 
Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofAlbanyCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Vaughn 
H. Newbauer, Laramie, 
Wyoming

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

John M. 
Burman, Faculty Supervisor; Shannan Tucker, Student Intern; and Amanda Rustad, 
Student Intern, of the University of 
Wyoming Legal Services, Laramie, Wyoming.  
Argument by Ms. Tucker.

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

 
 
 
 

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]           
After 
pleading guilty, CDB, Jr. (Father) was convicted of several counts of sexually 
abusing his daughter, HMB.  HMB's 
mother, DJE (Mother), filed a petition to terminate Father's parental rights to 
HMB.  The trial court terminated 
Father's parental rights, finding that circumstances supporting termination 
pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and § 14-2-309(a)(iv) (LexisNexis 
2005)1 were proven by clear and convincing 
evidence.  Father appeals.  We affirm.2

 
 
 
 

 
 

[¶2]           
CDB 
raises the following issues:

 
 
I.  Was insufficient evidence presented to 
the district court to terminate appellant's parental rights pursuant to Wyoming 
Statutes [sic] § 14-2-309(a)(iii) when there was no showing of any efforts to 
rehabilitate the family and there was no showing that the minor child's health 
or safety would be jeopardized if appellant's parental rights remained 
intact?

 
 
II.  Was insufficient evidence presented to 
the district court to terminate appellant's parental rights pursuant to Wyoming 
Statutes [sic] § 14-2-309(a)(iv) when there was no showing of serious bodily 
injury, and thus no showing of unfitness?

 
 
 
 

 
 

[¶3]           
The 
material facts are not in dispute.  
Father pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault in the second 
degree, one count of sexual assault in the third degree, and one count of 
incest.  He was sentenced to a 
minimum of forty-seven years and a maximum of one hundred years in the Wyoming 
State Penitentiary.  HMB was the 
victim of these sexual assaults.  
Mother testified at the termination hearing that Father admitted he 
sexually molested HMB more than once.  
Mother also testified that HMB is scared of Father and his family and she 
did not want to be related to them anymore. No evidence to the contrary was 
presented.

 
 
 
 

 
 
Standard 
of Review           

 
 

[¶4]           
Father 
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination of his 
parental rights.  When a party 
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting termination, this Court 
applies our traditional principles of evidentiary review.  In re CC, 2004 WY 167, ¶11, 102 P.3d 890, 894 (Wyo. 2004); Matter of SYM, 924 P.2d 985, 987 (Wyo. 1996).  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.   In re MN, 2003 
WY 135, ¶5, 78 P.3d 232, 234 (Wyo. 2003).  
This Court then reviews the supporting evidence to ascertain if it 
clearly and convincingly establishes the statutory elements required to support 
termination.  In re Termination 
of Parental Rights to IH, 2001 WY 100, ¶14, 33 P.3d 172, 178 (Wyo. 
2001).  Evidence is clear and 
convincing if it 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).  

 
 
 
 
Sufficiency 
of the Evidence

 
 

[¶5]           
The 
trial court found clear and convincing evidence to support the termination of 
Father's parental rights under both § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and § 
14-2-309(a)(iv).  Father's parental 
rights are properly terminated if either subsection is satisfied.  We will address subsection (a)(iv) first 
(Father's Issue II).  Subsection 
(a)(iv) permits termination of parental rights if clear and convincing evidence 
establishes that the parent is incarcerated due to a felony conviction and the 
parent is unfit to have custody and control of the child.  Father admits he is incarcerated due to 
his conviction of a felony.  Father 
claims, however, that there is no evidence that he is unfit to have the custody 
and control of HMB.3   

 
 

[¶6]           
Father 
argues that the district court cannot use his convictions in determining his 
fitness to be a parent.  He argues 
that, because there is no other evidence besides his convictions, the evidence 
is insufficient to support termination of his parental rights.  We agree that the fact of incarceration, 
by itself, is not per se evidence of unfitness.  Matter of Adoption of JLP, 774 P.2d 624, 630 (Wyo. 1989) ("incarceration alone is 
insufficient to establish unfitness").  
Father's incarceration is, however, a reality that severely impacts the 
parent-child relationship and therefore cannot be ignored.  The district court is entitled to look 
at the circumstances surrounding Father's felony conviction when determining 
Father's fitness to have custody and control of his daughter.  Id.  

 
 

[¶7]           
The 
circumstances surrounding Father's incarceration support a finding that Father 
is unfit to have custody and control of HMB.  Because of the length of Father's term 
of incarceration, it is extremely improbable that Father will ever be able to 
appropriately care for the ongoing physical, mental or emotional needs of HMB 
during her minority or indeed well into her adulthood.  Most importantly, though, is the nature 
of the crime underlying Father's conviction.  Father was convicted on several counts 
of sexually abusing his daughter.  
There can be nothing that makes a parent more intrinsically unfit than 
abusing his child.  See In Interest of JG, 742 P.2d 770, 775 (Wyo. 
1987) (Appellant's abuse of his children "demonstrates unequivocally that the 
appellant is an unfit parent by any standard.").

 
 

[¶8]           
This 
Court has previously upheld a finding of unfitness under similar circumstances: 

 
 
[Appellant's] 
crimes indicate extreme moral delinquency, that he will be unable to discharge 
his parental duties throughout the minority of the child, and that he is 
generally unsuitable to perform the requisite parental functions.  This evidence . . .  graphically demonstrates that appellant 
is an unfit parent by any standard.

 
 

JLP, 774 P.2d  at 632.  Upon consideration of 
multiple factors, it is clear that Father is unfit to have custody and control 
of HMB.  The statutory criteria for 
termination of parental rights under § 14-2-309(a)(iv) having been satisfied, we 
proceed no further.

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 

[¶9]           
Clear 
and convincing evidence exists supporting termination of Father's parental 
rights.  Father's unfitness to be a 
parent to HMB is manifestly obvious.  
Affirmed. 

 
 

FOOTNOTES

  1§ 14-2-309. 
Grounds for termination of parent-child relationship; clear and convincing 
evidence.

(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;

* * * 
*

(iv) The 
parent is incarcerated due to the conviction of a felony and a showing that the 
parent is unfit to have the custody and control of the 
child[.]

 
 
  2Father's brief 
fails to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.05(b)(3) in that the font size is too small. We 
take this opportunity to remind counsel that such violations render a party 
susceptible to sanctions pursuant to W.R.A.P. 1.03.

 
 

  3Father's 
phrasing of his issue is somewhat confusing.  No finding of serious bodily injury was 
made by the district court, nor was such a finding material to the final 
determination of the district court.  
Based upon the argument presented, we read Father's issue to simply 
challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting a finding of unfitness.