Title: NLT v. State, Dep't of Family Servs.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: KAT, SAT, AND JGS, Minor Children, NLT v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; IN THE MATTER OF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: JGS, Minor Child, MDS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2012 WY 150Case Number: S-12-0068; S-12-0069Decided: 11/28/2012This 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 that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume. 
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 
2012 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTALRIGHTS TO:
KAT, 
SAT, and JGS, Minor Children,
 
NLT,
 
Appellant
(Respondent),
 
v.
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES,
 
Appellee
(Petitioner).
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTALRIGHTS TO:
JGS, 
Minor Child,
 
MDS,
 
Appellant
(Respondent),
 
v.
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES,
 
Appellee
(Petitioner).
 
Appeals from the 
District Court of Hot Springs County
The Honorable Robert 
E. Skar, Judge
 
Case No. 
S-12-0068:
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Mary 
L. Scheible of Scheible Law Office, Thermopolis, 
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. Kucera.
 
Guardian Ad 
Litem:
Bobbi 
D. Overfield of Messenger & Overfield, P.C., Thermopolis, 
Wyoming.
 
Case No. 
S-12-0069:
 
Representing 
Appellant:
Christopher J. King 
of Worrall & Greear, P.C., Worland, Wyoming.
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory A. Phillips, 
Wyoming Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Jill 
E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Christina F. McCabe, 
Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by Ms. 
McCabe.
 
Guardian Ad 
Litem:
Bobbi 
D. Overfield of Messenger & Overfield, P.C., Thermopolis, 
Wyoming.
 
Before KITE, 
C.J., and GOLDEN,* HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
*Justice Golden 
retired effective September 30, 2012.
 
VOIGT, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      
This opinion encompasses two separate cases that have been consolidated 
for the purpose of decision.  NLT, who is one of the 
appellants in this matter, is the mother of KAT, SAT, and 
JGS.  The other appellant, MDS, is the father of 
JGS.  Following a five-day bench trial, the district 
court terminated NLT’s and MDS’s parental rights to the 
minor children.  Both parents appealed, claiming that the 
Department of Family Services (DFS) failed to provide clear and 
convincing evidence that their parental rights should be terminated.  
We affirm the district court’s decision.
 
ISSUES
[¶2]      
1.    Did DFS present clear 
and convincing evidence to support the district court’s decision to 
terminate NLT’s parental rights to KAT, SAT, and 
JGS?
 
            
2.    Did DFS present clear and 
convincing evidence to support the district court’s decision to 
terminate MDS’s parental rights to JGS?
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      
When she was 17 years old, NLT married CRT, a 45-year-old 
convicted sex offender.  Although NLT knew that 
her new husband had been convicted of sexually assaulting his son from a 
previous relationship, she believed that he “had learned his 
lesson.”  The couple lived in what can only be described as 
squalor, and, after seven years of marriage, the couple’s first child, KAT, was 
born on December 13, 2000.  Thereafter, a son, CT, was 
born1.  NLT 
believed her relationship with CRT was good until after the children were 
born.  At that point, CRT became abusive 
towards NLT and the children.  When KAT was 
approximately two years old, NLT removed KAT’s diaper 
and held her down while CRT sexually abused the child.  
Approximately a year after that event, NLT left the home with 
the children and, with the help of the Hope Agency, obtained a restraining order 
against CRT.
 
[¶4]      
Although they were separated and the restraining order had been issued, 
CRT continued to visit NLT and the children and would often stay the 
night at their apartment.  NLT then became 
pregnant with their third child.  NLT moved with 
her children to Riverton, but returned to Torrington and again lived with 
CRT.  Their third child, SAT, was born on November 1, 
2005.  Thereafter, NLT divorced CRT and moved with 
the children back to Riverton.
 
[¶5]      NLT 
began dating MDS and in April 2007, after becoming pregnant with his child, she 
moved her family to Thermopolis to live with him.  That 
summer, KAT, CT, and SAT stayed with their father, CRT, for three weeks in 
Torrington.  NLT was concerned about the children 
when they returned from the visit because the children were all having a 
difficult time using the bathroom and SAT had a yeast 
infection.  NLT took the children to the doctor 
and the problems were resolved.  NLT’s 
and MDS’s child, JGS, was born on October 2, 2007.
 
[¶6]      
After JGS was born, KAT disclosed to her mother that her 
uncle, GT, had touched her inappropriately while she was staying with her father 
the previous summer.  NLT told MDS 
about KAT’s allegations, and MDS advised NLT that she 
ought not report the abuse because DFS would take the children 
away.  Although NLT was concerned that her 
children would be taken away, she reported the abuse to the Hope 
Agency.  The DFS office in Torrington was notified 
of the allegations, but no action was taken or criminal charges 
filed.
 
[¶7]      
In 2008, DFS had two more contacts with the family: one 
regarding a report of SAT being left alone outside in inappropriate dress for 
winter and the other after a report of excessive punishment.  
In response to those reports, DFS offered parenting classes 
for the family and counseling services for 
KAT.  NLT and MDS agreed to the parenting classes, 
but declined counseling for KAT.  During this time, CT was no 
longer living with NLT and MDS.  According to 
NLT, MDS and CT were not getting along and, thus, MDS suggested that CT 
live with CRT.  This suggestion was made even 
though NLT and MDS both believed that CRT had been molesting 
CT.  Although service providers helping the family at the time 
warned that it was not a good idea to send CT to live with CRT, NLT 
ultimately agreed to do so because she was afraid that MDS would otherwise make 
her leave the home.
 
[¶8]      
When service providers came to the home to assist NLT and 
MDS, they often observed inappropriate behavior, usually from MDS.  
MDS made threatening comments towards the providers and was belittling 
of NLT in front of others.  One provider reported 
the behavior to her agency’s attorney, who felt it was no longer safe for that 
provider to go to the home.  With other providers, MDS 
generally left the room when parenting skills were discussed, and neither MDS 
nor NLT “model[ed]” the techniques the providers were using 
with the children.
 
[¶9]      
In January 2009, NLT called her social service aide 
at DFS to apologize for missing a parenting session earlier in the 
day.  During the conversation, NLT told the social 
service aide about the incident wherein NLT assisted CRT in sexually 
abusing KAT.  NLT explained that MDS told her he 
had a tape recording of her disclosing the abuse of KAT to MDS, and that he was 
going to give the tape to DFS.  The social service aide 
contacted her supervisor and law enforcement.  NLT 
then repeated what she and CRT had done to KAT to Officer McDonald of the 
Thermopolis Police Department.  
Officer McDonald 
discussed the situation with DFS, the police chief, and the county 
attorney, and it was decided that NLT’s children needed to be taken 
into protective custody. 
 
[¶10]   
The Hot Springs County Attorney filed a neglect petition 
against NLT on February 3, 2009, and a shelter care hearing was held 
the same day.  The juvenile court ordered that KAT and SAT 
remain in DFS custody for foster care placement, and 
that JGS be returned to MDS.  On February 10, 
2009, DFS took KAT to the Children’s Advocacy Project for a forensic 
interview.  In that interview, KAT disclosed that she had been 
sexually abused by her father, CRT, and her uncle, GT.  She 
also disclosed that MDS had sexually abused her, anally raped her, and made her 
view pornography.  Thereafter, MDS was arrested 
and JGS was placed in protective custody.  The 
county attorney then filed a neglect petition against NLT and MDS on 
February 13, 2009.
 
[¶11]   DFS 
developed case plans for both NLT and MDS, with the permanency goal 
of reunification with the children.  NLT’s case 
plan goals were to establish a safe home for the children without financial 
support from MDS, attend counseling and address treatment needs, obtain a 
psychosexual and psychological evaluation, take random drug and alcohol tests, 
and attend regular visitation with the 
children.  MDS’s case plan goals were to attend 
counseling, obtain a psychosexual evaluation, a substance abuse evaluation, a 
domestic violence and anger management evaluation, maintain consistent housing 
and employment, and visitation with JGS.
 
[¶12]   
Over the next several months, a multidisciplinary team regularly met to 
evaluate NLT’s and MDS’s progress in their case 
plans.  MDS failed to comply with any part of his case plan 
other than visitation, and NLT failed to make attempts to gain 
employment or housing.  During this time, MDS was convicted of 
two counts of first-degree sexual assault for his conduct with KAT and was 
sentenced to serve two consecutive terms of 20 to 35 years in 
prison.  Also during this time, the juvenile court found that 
the allegations against NLT and MDS in each of the petitions were 
true.  On November 16, 2009, the multidisciplinary team 
recommended that the permanency goal of NLT’s and MDS’s 
case plans be changed from reunification to termination of parental 
rights.  The juvenile court ordered that termination be the 
new goal, and DFS prepared new case plans which reflected that 
goal.
 
[¶13]   
On August 31, 2010, DFS filed a petition to 
terminate NLT’s parental rights to KAT, SAT, and JGS 
pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. §14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v) (Lexis Nexis 
2011) and MDS’s parental rights to JGS pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii), (iv), and (v).2  The 
district court held a five-day bench trial in June 2011, where all parties 
presented witnesses and exhibits.  Thereafter, the district 
court found clear and convincing evidence of each allegation in the petition, 
and granted the petition to terminate NLT’s parental rights to KAT, 
SAT, and JGS, and the petition to terminate MDS’s parental 
rights to JGS.
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW
 
[¶14]   
In their appeals, NLT and MDS both claim that DFS 
failed to present clear and convincing evidence that supports the district 
court’s decision to terminate their parental rights.  We use 
our traditional sufficiency of the evidence standard of review when considering 
whether sufficient evidence was presented to terminate parental rights: 

 
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.
 
MSH v. 
ALH, 2012 WY 29, ¶ 12, 
271 P.3d 983, 986 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting JLW v. 
CAB (In re WDW), 2010 WY 9, ¶ 17, 224 P.3d 14, 19 (Wyo. 
2010) (internal citations omitted)).
 
DISCUSSION
 
Termination 
of NLT’s parental rights
 
[¶15]   DFS 
petitioned that NLT’s parental rights to KAT, SAT, 
and JGS be terminated on two grounds.  
First, DFS sought termination pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-2-309(a)(iii), which requires DFS to prove by clear and 
convincing evidence that the children have been abused or neglected by the 
parent, that DFS has made reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the 
family, and that the children’s health and safety would be seriously jeopardized 
if returned to the parent.  Second, DFS sought 
termination pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v), which 
requires DFS to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 
children have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months and that 
the parent is unfit to have custody and control of the 
children.  NLT claims that DFS failed 
to prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the requirements of Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) and that DFS failed to prove that she is 
unfit to have custody and control of her children, as required by Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v).
 
[¶16]   
Although DFS requested that NLT’s parental rights 
be terminated pursuant to two separate grounds, and the district court found 
that both of those grounds had been sufficiently proven, “[p]arental 
rights may be terminated on a finding of just one” of the stated subsections 
enunciated in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309.  SD v. Carbon 
Cnty. Dep’t of Family Servs., 2002 WY 168, ¶ 6, 
57 P.3d 1235, 1238 (Wyo. 2002).  For that reason, 
we find it appropriate to affirm the district court’s decision to 
terminate NLT’s parental rights so long as one of the bases in Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309 has been proven with clear and convincing 
evidence.  We find that DFS did provide clear and 
convincing evidence to support the district court’s finding to 
terminate NLT’s parental rights pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-2-309(a)(v).
 
[¶17]   
As mentioned above, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v) 
requires DFS to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the 
children have been in foster care 15 of the most recent 22 months and 
that NLT is unfit to have custody and control of the 
children.  NLT does not dispute that the children 
have been in foster care for 15 of the last 22 months.  
Therefore, we need only determine whether there was clear and convincing 
evidence presented that NLT is unfit to have custody and control of 
the children.  We find that DFS met that 
burden.
 
[¶18]   
The termination statutes do not define the term “unfit;” however, this 
Court has 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).  Further:
 
It is well-settled 
that a parent’s fitness is to be determined at the time of the termination 
trial.  AJJ v. State (In re 
KMJ), 2010 WY 142, ¶ 17, 242 P.3d 968, 971 (Wyo. 
2010).  “That does not mean, however, that the district court 
must ignore evidence of a parent’s previous unfitness.”  
Id.  This Court recently reiterated that 
“[i]t is appropriate for a district court to consider a parent’s history 
and pattern of behavior over time in determining whether rights should be 
terminated.”  JLW v. CAB (In re 
WDW), 2010 WY 9, ¶ 24, 224 P.3d 14, 20 (Wyo. 2010) 
(citations omitted).  Evidence of past behavior is “plainly 
relevant in determining current parental fitness.”  JD v. 
State (In re AE), 2009 WY 78, ¶ 18, 208 P.3d 1323, 1328 (Wyo. 
2009).
 
PRG v. 
State, Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re KMO), 2012 WY 100, ¶ 20, 
280 P.3d 1216, 1222 (Wyo. 2012).
 
[¶19]   DFS 
presented a tremendous amount of evidence at trial 
demonstrating NLT’s past and current inability to meet the ongoing 
physical, mental, and emotional needs of KAT, SAT, and JGS.  
When NLT married CRT, and chose to have children with him, 
she knew that he previously had been convicted of sexually abusing his son from 
a prior relationship.  After the children were born, CRT 
became abusive, and NLT chose to remain in that relationship for 
several years.  Tragically, NLT also participated 
in the abuse of, at least, KAT, as she admitted that she removed 
two-year-old KAT’s diaper and held her down by her arms and legs so 
that CRT could sexually abuse the child.  Even 
after NLT moved out and received a restraining order against CRT, 
she continued to allow him to visit the family and eventually became pregnant 
with their third child.  After NLT divorced CRT, 
she continued to let the children spend weeks at a time alone with CRT, despite 
her knowledge regarding his history of abuse.
 
[¶20]   DFS 
also presented evidence that, after NLT divorced CRT and moved to 
Thermopolis with MDS, the family’s life was still very 
dysfunctional.  The family was receiving services from Early 
Head Start, and the service providers who assisted the family testified 
that NLT and MDS were not working on recommended parenting skills 
and that MDS treated NLT poorly while the providers were in the 
home, including threats to kick NLT out of the home.  
There also came a time when MDS and NLT’s young son, CT, were 
not getting along.  MDS told NLT that she needed 
to send CT to live with CRT or else NLT and her children would have 
to move out of the home.  Instead of moving out with her 
children, NLT chose to allow CT to live with CRT--a man she and MDS 
suspected of sexually abusing the child.
 
[¶21]   
Once the children were taken into protective custody, KAT stated that, 
not only had she been sexually abused by her father and uncle, she had been 
sexually abused by MDS.  Nonetheless, NLT 
continued to live with and support MDS.  Mother attempted to 
influence KAT by talking about MDS at her visitations with the children, 
although she specifically had been told by DFS not to bring him up 
in conversation.  NLT also testified 
on MDS’s behalf at trial, and later admitted to committing perjury 
at the trial in an attempt to help him.
 
[¶22]   NLT 
has failed to find a safe and appropriate place for her to live with her 
children, and has not found full-time employment to support her 
family.  Further, her parenting skills never improved, despite 
assistance from DFS and other 
agencies.  NLT’s therapist testified 
that NLT always put MDS’s needs before those of the 
children, and would continue to put other’s needs before her children’s in the 
future.  Further, NLT is vulnerable and subject to 
manipulation by people who are “predatory or unscrupulous.”  
This is particularly concerning because, at the time of 
trial, NLT was dating a man with a history of domestic 
violence.  The therapist also testified that NLT’s 
everyday functioning level would have to change in order for her adequately to 
parent her children and that she would always need extraordinary support from 
others.  KAT’s therapist testified that KAT will 
need a greater amount of protection and safety than most children, due to her 
past victimization.  The therapist also expressed that she has 
concerns about NLT’s ability to provide that structure for 
KAT.  Similarly, SAT’s speech pathologist testified that she 
felt placing SAT back into an unstructured environment would be detrimental to 
the child’s progress.
 
[¶23]   
All of this evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates 
that NLT is unfit to have custody and control of KAT, SAT, and 
JGS.  She knowingly and routinely put the children into 
harm’s way at the behest of others.  She chose to continue to 
live with men who were abusive towards her and her children, and actively 
participated in the sexual abuse of one of the children.  She 
chose to testify on behalf of MDS, who was accused and convicted of sexually 
abusing her daughter.  She cannot provide financially for 
herself or her children and she has not found an adequate home.  
She simply does not have the skills required to be an adequate 
parent.
 
[¶24]   NLT 
does not dispute any of the evidence presented by DFS.  
Instead, she argues that she can be a fit parent now that she “has 
aligned herself with professionals and agencies to help her provide [the] 
structure and services” that her children will 
need.  NLT explains that she is mildly retarded 
and suffers from epilepsy and that she needs assistance with her children 
because she was not raised in an environment that encouraged 
stability.  While we are sympathetic to NLT’s 
difficulties, “[I]t would seem unreasonable and not for the best interests of 
the child[ren] that professional welfare workers should be furnished to 
care for [these] child[ren] in the parental home on a twenty-four-hour 
basis for the many years until the child[ren] [] can be 
self-sufficient.”  MN v. State, Dep’t of Family 
Servs. (In re MN), 2003 WY 135, ¶ 27, 78 P.3d 232, 238 
(Wyo. 2003) (quoting Matter of C.M., 556 P.2d 514, 519 
(Wyo. 1976)). 
 
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.
 
SD, 2002 WY 168, ¶ 27, 
57 P.3d  at 1241.  We find that the district 
court’s conclusion that DFS presented clear and convincing evidence 
that NLT is unfit to have custody and control of KAT, SAT, 
and JGS was appropriate, and affirm the district court’s order 
terminating NLT’s parental rights.
 
Termination 
of MDS’s parental rights
 
[¶25]   DFS 
petitioned the district court to terminate MDS’s parental rights on 
three different grounds.  The first two grounds are the same 
as what were alleged against NLT above--Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-2-309(a)(iii) and (v).  DFS additionally 
petitioned the district court to terminate MDS’s parental rights 
to JGS upon the grounds found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-2-309(a)(iv).  That subsection requires DFS to 
show by clear and convincing evidence that MDS is incarcerated due to a felony 
conviction and that he is unfit to have the custody and control of the 
child.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv).  
We find that the record shows clear and convincing evidence that MDS is 
incarcerated due to a felony conviction and is unfit to have the custody and 
control of JGS; therefore, we affirm the district court’s order 
terminating MDS’s parental rights to the child.
 
[¶26]   
MDS does not dispute that he currently is incarcerated due to a felony 
conviction.  Therefore, we need only determine 
whether DFS provided sufficient evidence to show that MDS is unfit 
to have the custody and control of JGS.  The fact that 
MDS is incarcerated is not per se evidence of 
unfitness.  CDB v. DJE, 2005 
WY 102, ¶ 6, 118 P.3d 439, 441 (Wyo. 2005).  His 
“incarceration is, however, a reality that severely impacts the parent-child 
relationship and therefore cannot be ignored.”  
Id.  Here, MDS’s incarceration will 
have a severe impact upon his “ability to meet the ongoing physical, mental, and 
emotional needs of [JGS].”  MSH, 
2012 WY 29, ¶ 8, 271 P.3d  at 986 
(quoting R.L.A. v. Dep’t of Family Servs. (In re 
L.A.), 2009 WY 109, ¶ 14, 215 P.3d 266, 269 (Wyo. 
2009)).  MDS is currently serving two consecutive sentences of 
not less than 20 years nor more than 35 years in the Wyoming State 
Penitentiary.  See Sullivan v. State, 2011 WY 46, ¶ 8, 
247 P.3d 879, 881 (Wyo. 2011).  JGS 
will be well into his adulthood before MDS will even be eligible for 
parole.  MDS will not be able appropriately to care for his 
child’s ongoing physical, mental, or emotional needs because he will be in 
prison for JGS’s entire childhood.  See 
CDB, 2005 WY 102, ¶ 7, 118 P.3d  at 441; 
MSH, 2012 WY 29, ¶ 17, 271 P.3d  at 
987.
 
[¶27]   
The reason for MDS’s incarceration is also evidence that he 
is unfit to care for his child.  MDS was convicted of sexually 
assaulting JGS’s half-sister, KAT.  KAT revealed 
that MDS had anally raped her on two separate occasions, made her taste his 
semen, forced her to watch pornography, and that he inappropriately touched her 
on other occasions.  See Sullivan, 2011 WY 46, ¶ 3, 
247 P.3d  at 881.  We have recognized that “[t]here 
can be nothing that makes a parent more intrinsically unfit than abusing his 
child.”  CDB, 2005 WY 102, ¶ 7, 
118 P.3d  at 441.  MDS claims that this should not 
be applied in his case, as there were no allegations that he abused his own 
child; only his child’s half-sister.  While MDS’s 
assertion may be accurate, we do not believe that distinction weighs in favor of 
showing he is a fit parent.  It shows that he is a convicted 
sexual offender who preyed upon his child’s sibling--a child who was living in 
the home as part of MDS’s and JGS’s family.  
To date, MDS has refused to take responsibility for his criminal actions 
against KAT.  While this behavior may not have been physically 
directed toward JGS, it nonetheless affects him, and 
illustrates MDS’s “extreme moral delinquency,” which “graphically 
demonstrates that [MDS] is an unfit parent by any standard.”  
In re Adoption of JLP, 774 P.2d 624, 632 (Wyo. 
1989).
 
[¶28]   DFS 
presented clear and convincing evidence that MDS is incarcerated due to a felony 
conviction and that he is unfit to have custody and control of 
JGS.  JGS will be well into adulthood by 
the time MDS will become eligible for parole.  Due to the 
length of his incarceration, MDS will not be able to provide 
for JGS’s ongoing physical, mental, or emotional needs during his 
childhood.  Further, MDS committed horrendous acts against 
KAT--JGS’s half-sister--while they were all living together as a 
family.  We, therefore, affirm the district court’s order 
terminating MDS’s parental rights to JGS.
 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶29]   DFS 
presented clear and convincing evidence at trial to support the district court’s 
decision to terminate NLT’s parental rights to KAT, SAT, and 
JGS, pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v).  The 
evidence demonstrated that all of the children had been in foster care for 15 of 
the most recent 22 months, and that NLT continuously put her 
children in dangerous situations, placed the wants and desires of her ex-husband 
and boyfriends ahead of the welfare of her children, and cannot meet the basic 
financial and parental needs of the children.  The evidence 
also showed that NLT would never be able to provide adequate care 
for her children absent extraordinary help from service 
providers.  DFS also presented clear and 
convincing evidence to support the district court’s decision to 
terminate MDS’s parental rights to JGS, pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv).  MDS is currently serving 
two consecutive sentences of not less than 20 years nor more than 35 years in 
prison for sexually abusing KAT.  MDS cannot appropriately 
care for JGS’s ongoing physical, mental or emotional needs while he 
is in prison and will not be eligible for parole until JGS is in his 
adulthood.  Further, the evidence demonstrates that MDS is a 
sexual offender who suffers from such moral delinquency that he cannot be 
considered a fit parent.  We affirm both of the district court 
orders terminating NLT’s and MDS’s rights to KAT, SAT, 
and JGS.
 
FOOTNOTES
1DFS has 
not sought to terminate NLT’s parental rights to CT because CT was 
not living in the home at the time the petition was filed.
2The relevant 
portions of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309 state:
 
(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;
 
        
(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[.]