Title: IN THE INTEREST OF HP AND NP

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE INTEREST OF HP AND NP2004 WY 8293 P.3d 982Case Number: C-03-15Decided: 07/14/2004
April Term, A.D. 2004

 
 

IN 
THE INTEREST OF HP and NP,

minor 
children:

 

AA,

 

Appellant(Respondent),

 

v.

 

THE 
STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT

OF 
FAMILY SERVICES,

 

Appellee(Petitioner).

 

 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Stacy 
E. Casper of Casper Law Office, LLC, Casper, WY.  Argument by Ms. 
Casper.

 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; Dan 
S. Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Jill E. Kucera, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General.  
Argument by Ms. Kucera.

 

Guardian 
ad Litem:

Ann 
M. Rochelle.

 

 

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

 

 

LEHMAN, 
Justice.

 

[¶1]      Mother 
appeals the juvenile court order entered following a review hearing in a neglect 
proceeding.  The juvenile court 
ordered the Department of Family Services (DFS) to pursue termination of 
parental rights.  Mother challenges 
the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the juvenile court's findings.  She also asserts that her fundamental 
rights were violated.  We 
affirm.

 

 

ISSUES
 

[¶2]      Mother presents 
two issues:

 

I.  Whether 
the trial court erred in finding that reasonable efforts had been made to 
reunify the family, that there were ongoing and persistent failures by mother to 
comply with basic requirements of case plan and that the children's health and 
safety would be jeopardized by returning the children to the 
mother.

 

II.  Whether 
mother's fundamental rights were violated when her right to associate with her 
children was terminated by decision of MDT group July 1, 2002, contrary to the 
court's prior ruling of June 4, 2003.

 

The 
State phrases the issues as:

 

I.  Was 
there sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to determine, by clear and 
convincing evidence, that reasonable efforts had been made to reunify the family 
and that the health and safety of the minor children would be jeopardized by 
returning the children to the mother?

 

II.  Were 
Mother's rights violated in this neglect proceeding?

 

Finally, 
the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) presents the following statement of the 
issues:

 

1.  The 
Trial Court properly found by clear and convincing evidence that [Mother's] 
parental rights to her two children, [HP] and [NP] should be terminated. 

 

2.  There 
was no violation of [Mother's] rights by the actions of the Multi-Disciplinary 
Team on July 1, 2002.

 

 

FACTS
 

[¶3]      On December 4, 
2001, the Natrona County Assistant District Attorney filed a petition in the 
juvenile court alleging that Mother's two children, HP and NP, were 
neglected.  Prior to the petition, 
HP and NP had been residing in the home of their paternal grandparents and 
biological father (Father).  A 
supporting affidavit provided by DFS alleged that on December 3, 2001, DFS was 
informed "the family could no longer provide care for the children."  At that time, the grandparents had been 
evicted from their home; the location of Father was unknown, but he was believed 
to be in the Wyoming Behavioral Institute; and Mother was incarcerated at the 
Natrona County Detention Center for drug issues.  On December 5, 2001, Mother was 
sentenced to eighteen to twenty-four months at the Women's Center in Lusk, 
Wyoming.  

 

[¶4]      Additionally on 
December 5, 2001, the juvenile court held a shelter care hearing.  Mother was present at the hearing and 
was advised of her rights and the allegations in the petition.  Father did not attend.  The juvenile court found that Mother was 
serving a sentence at the Women's Center.  
This fact, combined with Father's failure to attend the hearing, led the 
juvenile court to find that the children needed continued shelter care. The 
juvenile court therefore placed the children in the temporary legal and physical 
custody of DFS for appropriate placement.  
The court additionally ordered DFS to provide case management. 

 

[¶5]      On December 19, 
2001, the district court held an initial hearing on the petition.  Again, Father did not attend the 
hearing.  At the hearing, Mother 
stated that she was in agreement with an adjudication of neglect.  The court then stated that it would 
"adjudicate the case based upon the petition that [is] not objected to and the 
affidavit of [DFS]."  The court 
found that it was neither appropriate nor in the children's best interest to 
remain in the family's home.  In its 
order of placement following the hearing, the juvenile court noted that Mother 
"admitted and consented to the Court's jurisdiction and disposition" and ordered 
that the children remain in the legal and physical custody of DFS.  The court also ordered DFS to make 
reasonable efforts to reunite the family and that a multi-disciplinary team 
(MDT) be appointed to make recommendations and provide the court with a report 
for disposition of the matter.  

 

[¶6]      The MDT first met 
on January 11, 2002.  Mother 
appeared by telephone and reported Father had a negative effect on her and the 
children, Father had a history of becoming physically violent, and she had 
significant concerns for the children's safety if Father were allowed to care 
for them.  The MDT considered this 
information and the needs of the children and determined that both children 
needed consistent contact with Mother, an environment free from violence, and 
parents that were drug and alcohol free.  
The MDT also noted that Mother had "huge potential" due to her bonding 
with the children, positive family support, her intelligence, and stated 
willingness to make changes.  The 
recommended placement goal at that time was for the children to be reunified 
with Mother or Father.  To achieve 
reunification with her children, the MDT recommended that Mother complete the 
following objectives:

 

1)  Attend 
and successfully complete the drug treatment program at the Women's 
Center.

2)  Comply 
with all recommendations made throughout the treatment 
program.

3)  Attend 
and complete parenting classes available at the Women's 
Center.

4)  Complete 
her GED.

5)  Participate 
in individual counseling.  She will 
address co-dependency tendencies, self-esteem, her tendency to self-sabotage, 
and overall relationship issues.

6)  Pay 
child support of $10.00 per month, per child.  She will comply with Child Support 
Enforcement.  Their requirements of 
child support will override this recommended amount.

7)  Remain 
drug and alcohol free. 

 

Following 
this meeting, Mother received and signed the prepared case plan that contained 
these objectives. 

 

[¶7]      On January 23, 
2002, the juvenile court held a dispositional hearing.  The juvenile court found that custody 
should be continued in DFS and ordered DFS to continue to make reasonable 
efforts to reunite the children with their family.  The juvenile court also ordered the 
parents to cooperate with DFS and the case plan for reunification.  Lastly, the court ordered that the MDT 
reconvene in six months to review the case and make recommendations to the 
court.  On April 29, 2002, DFS filed 
a report with the court which summarized the progress Mother had made on the 
case plan.  The report indicated the 
permanency plan for HP and NP was family reunification with Mother.  In the report DFS recommended that the 
children remain in foster care until Mother was released from prison and had 
obtained employment and a home for her and the children.  

 

[¶8]      The MDT met a 
second time on July 1, 2002, and a third time on November 12, 2002.  Mother again participated in these 
meetings by phone.  The MDT noted 
Mother's progress with the case plan, such as the completion of her GED, but 
also noted problems encountered at the Women's Center, including being fired 
from employment.  The team continued 
to recommend that the children be reunified with Mother and set forth the 
objectives Mother needed to complete before reunification could be 
achieved.  These objectives were 
substantially similar to the ones noted previously.  At the third meeting the team agreed 
that it was important for the case to remain open to allow Mother to work toward 
reunification after she was released from the Women's Center in March 2003.  Following this meeting, the MDT 
submitted a report to the court and recommended the court consider that Mother 
was in prison until March of 2003 a compelling reason not to terminate Mother's 
parental rights.  At the third 
meeting Mother also noted that she was planning to live at Life Steps 
Transitional Housing upon her release from prison.  

 

[¶9]      A fourth MDT 
meeting was held on February 21, 2003, in anticipation of Mother's release from 
prison.  At that time, the MDT 
recommended that the children be reunified with Mother upon her satisfactory 
completion of her DFS case plan.  
Following this meeting Mother received and signed another case plan, 
which contained eight objectives:

 

1.  Obtain 
suitable housing,

2.  Maintain 
steady and suitable employment,

3.  Enroll 
in and complete parenting classes,

4.  Attend 
individual counseling,

5.  Have 
supervised visitation with her children,

6.  Keep 
in constant contact with DFS and CASA  keeping them aware of any and all 
changes,

7.  Remain 
free of any illegal substances, and

8.  Fully 
cooperate with a Family Assistance Worker. 

 

The team 
also worked with Mother regarding housing arrangements, employment, 
transportation to visit the children, childcare services, Title XIX, and medical 
coverage for the children.  Mother 
was released from the Women's Center on the anticipated date, and DFS placed the 
children with her on March 28, 2003. 

 

[¶10]   On May 2, 2003, the juvenile court 
held another review hearing.  At the 
time of the hearing, the case had been ongoing for seventeen months.  Prior to the hearing, DFS filed a report 
with the court.  In the report the 
MDT appeared optimistic about Mother's progress.  A CASA/Co-GAL report outlined Mother's 
home, employment, enrollment in a parenting class, and her child support 
payments.  Based on the MDT's 
positive report, the court ordered legal custody of the children to DFS and 
physical custody of the children to Mother.  The court further ordered that the 
matter "shall not continue for more than three (3) months absent further request 
for a hearing in this matter."  

 

[¶11]   However, DFS learned of several 
problems shortly after the May 2, 2003 review hearing.  These problems were noted at a May 20, 
2003 MDT meeting.  Specifically, 
Mother was unemployed.  
Additionally, within five days of the May 2, 2003 review hearing, Mother 
had been evicted from Life Steps housing.  
The eviction was reportedly the result of a failure to follow Life Steps' 
guidelines.  In particular, Mother 
was not doing her chores, not meeting with her case manager weekly, and not 
abiding by curfew.  In addition, 
Mother left her children unsupervised as she slept or talked on the phone, left 
the children with other residents without approval from Life Steps' staff, and 
was suspected of using alcohol at the facility.  At this meeting, Mother disputed that 
she was evicted due to alcohol use but did admit that she went out a lot and 
that she had been intoxicated after the children had been placed with her.  Mother also claimed that she had not 
left the children unattended but had asked a babysitter to look in on the 
children periodically.  On May 7, 
2003, Mother returned the children to DFS, and they were placed in a new foster 
home. 

 

[¶12]   Another problem discussed was that 
Mother allowed Father to have contact with the children and allowed the children 
to ride in a vehicle without proper safety restraints.  Specifically, Mother and the children 
were riding in a car with Father when he was arrested.  Mother was holding NP on her lap, and HP 
was not properly restrained in the back seat.  When Father was pulled over, he admitted 
to police that he had used methamphetamine earlier that day and had consumed 
alcohol. The police found a hypodermic needle and empty beer cans in the 
car.  Also, Father slurred his 
speech and had bloodshot eyes.  
Mother claimed that she was unaware that Father was under the influence 
of drugs or alcohol.  

 

[¶13]   At this meeting the MDT prepared a 
revised case plan, which Mother received and signed.  This plan included eight 
objectives:  obtain suitable housing 
within thirty days, obtain steady and suitable employment within thirty days, 
complete parenting classes, attend individual counseling, submit to random urine 
analysis, keep in constant contact with DFS and CASA and be honest and 
forthright about all pertinent information, not have any contact with Father, 
and cooperate with visitation set up by DFS.  The MDT also recommended that if Mother 
had not made significant progress on her plan within thirty days, the concurrent 
plan was to recommend termination of parental rights.  

 

[¶14]   The juvenile court held another 
review hearing on June 4, 2003.  Due 
to the eighteen months that the case had been pending, the juvenile court 
expressed reluctance to allow the case to proceed without achieving permanency 
for the children.  The State advised 
the court of the problems recently brought to the MDT's attention.  In particular, Mother was having contact 
with Father, Mother was leaving the children without appropriate supervision, 
and she was using alcohol in an inappropriate manner.  Additional concerns were raised that 
after Mother was evicted from Life Steps, she moved in with a boyfriend but 
would not disclose information about this man to DFS.  At the hearing the district court made 
the finding that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant continuing the 
case, but that Mother must comply with the DFS plan for reunification within 
forty-five days.  

 

[¶15]   On July 1, 2003, the MDT held a 
sixth meeting.  There DFS advised 
the MDT that Mother had obtained a job at Wendy's, but that she quit this job 
and now worked for a man named Impong.  
Pay stubs could not be obtained for this work, and it was reported that 
Mother did not receive a paycheck.  
Instead, Impong paid her rent and other bills as needed.  The MDT also learned that Mother missed 
appointments with her counselor, and the counselor then refused to see her.  In addition, MDT members reported that 
Mother was living with or sometimes staying with Impong, and his name was on the 
lease for Mother's apartment.  A DFS 
report to the court noted these facts and that Mother was evasive about her 
relationship with Impong, but that she was completely dependant on Impong for 
her financial and housing needs.  
The MDT recommended that parental rights be terminated.  

 

[¶16]   On August 6, 2003, the juvenile 
court held a dispositional review hearing.  
The court made three findings by clear and convincing evidence:  1) reasonable efforts have been 
made to reunify the family; 2) there have been ongoing and persistent 
failures on behalf of Mother to comply with basic plan requirements; and 
3) the children's health and safety would be jeopardized by returning the 
children to Mother.  In making its 
findings at the review hearing the court stated, "just by the passage of time 
and the large, large number of efforts that have been involved with this case 
that there have been reasonable efforts to rehabilitate; that there have been 
ongoing, persistent, and continued failures on the part of [Mother] to seek and 
maintain some stability in housing, a safe environment, employment, counseling, 
and the other just basics that would need to be implemented."   The juvenile court then ordered 
that the case remain open for six months, legal and physical custody remain with 
DFS, and that DFS pursue termination of parental rights.  Mother appeals this order.  

 

 

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 

[¶17]   We understand Mother's argument to 
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court's 
findings.  When reviewing 
a record for sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of neglect, 
we:

 

1.  Give 
considerable deference to the trial court's determination because it has the 
advantage to judge the demeanor and intelligence of the 
witnesses;

2.  Examine 
the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee and resolve all conflicts 
in evidence for appellee;

3.  Assume 
as true the evidence in appellee's favor, disregard entirely appellant's 
evidence in conflict with appellee's evidence, and give to appellee's evidence 
every favorable inference that may fairly be drawn.

 

DH 
v. Dep't of Family Servs. (In 
re "H" Children), 2003 WY 155, ¶54, 79 P.3d 997, ¶54 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting 
MP v. State in Interest of CP, 965 P.2d 1155, 1157 (Wyo. 
1998)).

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Findings of 
Fact

 

[¶18]   In order to facilitate our 
discussion of the issues presented by the parties, we find it necessary to 
briefly review the procedural process of this case.  This matter came before the juvenile 
court as the result of a petition alleging neglect as defined by Wyo. Stat. Ann 
§ 14-3-401 through -439 (LexisNexis 2003), the Child Protection Act.  Under the Child Protection Act, a 
neglected child is defined as a child "[w]hose custodian has failed or refused 
to provide adequate care, maintenance, supervision, education or medical, 
surgical or any other care necessary for the child's well being."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-402(a)(xii)(A).  Allegations of 
neglect under the Act must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-425(a).

 

[¶19]   In her brief, Mother states that 
the petition only alleged neglect against Father.  In reviewing the petition we see that it 
alleged that the children were "without proper care and control or lack 
subsistence, maintenance, education required by law, medical care or treatment 
or supervision necessary for said children's health and welfare because of 
omissions of said children's parents."  
Hence, the petition did not specify a particular parent but included both 
parents.  Furthermore, at the 
initial hearing held on December 19, 2001, Mother admitted and consented to the 
court's jurisdiction and disposition.  
We therefore conclude the petition of neglect involved Mother.     

 

[¶20]   As noted in the fact section, at 
the initial hearing Mother stated that she was in agreement with an adjudication 
of neglect, and the court stated that it would "adjudicate the case based upon 
the petition that's not objected to and the affidavit of [DFS]."  However, following the initial hearing, 
it appears that there is no separate decree of neglect against Mother.  We note, as we did in In re "H" 
Children, ¶63, we are somewhat concerned by the lack of a decree.  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(i) 
contemplates a separate decree of neglect, and § 14-3-426(c) requires entry of a 
decree.  Id.  Nevertheless, the lack of a separate 
decree is not specifically raised as an issue in this case, and we will not 
consider it further.  

 

[¶21]   What we do find in the record 
following the initial hearing is an Order for Placement.  This order does not specifically use the 
word "neglect" or make a specific finding of neglect against Mother.  However, it does state that the court 
"hereby adjudicates and takes jurisdiction over this matter" and specifically 
finds that Mother was sentenced to the Wyoming State Penitentiary.  As defined by the Child Protection Act, 
"adjudication" is "a finding by the court or the jury, incorporated in a decree, 
as to the truth of the facts alleged in the petition." Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-402(a)(i).  By specifically 
stating that it "adjudicates" the matter, the juvenile court made a finding that 
the facts alleged in the petition were true.  We conclude that this statement, 
combined with the court's specific finding that Mother was in prison, was a 
finding of neglect against Mother.  
In fact later at the August 6, 2003 review hearing, the juvenile court 
explained that Mother's incarceration and inability to care for the children 
constituted neglect.  We have 
previously allowed orders that do not specifically use the word "neglect" but do 
contain findings tantamount to neglect to constitute findings of neglect.  See In Interest of C, 638 P.2d 165, 172 (Wyo. 1981); In Interest of MFB, 860 P.2d 1140, 1151 (Wyo. 
1993).  We similarly find that in 
this case the court made a finding of neglect against Mother.   

 

[¶22]   Having found that the juvenile 
court did make a finding of neglect against Mother, we additionally conclude 
that there was sufficient evidence for the court to make such a finding.  At the time the petition was filed, 
Mother was incarcerated and unable to care for the children.  The whereabouts of Father were 
unknown.  The children were left 
with Father's parents who could not care for them, and no one else had been 
provided to care for the children.  
As such, we hold that there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile 
court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the children were 
neglected inasmuch as Mother had failed to provide adequate care for the 
children's well-being.    

 

[¶23]   This finally leads us to the order 
Mother specifically appeals.  This 
order states:   

 

            
AND THE COURT FINDS by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable 
efforts have been made to reunify the family and that there have been ongoing 
and persistent failures on behalf of the mother of the minor children, [Mother], 
to comply with basic case plan requirements and that the children's health and 
safety would be jeopardized by returning the children to the mother; FURTHER, 
that the said father of the minor children is 
incarcerated.

 

. . .

 

            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter shall continue for six (6) months; 
and that the Department of Family Services shall pursue Termination of Parental 
Rights.

 

            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the previous Court orders and conditions not 
amended herein shall be continued.  

 

Because the 
order specifically continues the case for six months, at first glance it may not 
appear to be an appealable order.  
However, under W.R.A.P. 1.05(b), an order affecting a substantial right 
made in a special proceeding is an appealable order.  "Proceedings in juvenile court are 
special proceedings and both adjudication and disposition affect substantial 
rights."  In 
re "H" Children, 
¶61.  As discussed above, the court 
adjudicated neglect following the initial hearing.  This order did however follow a 
dispositional review hearing and appears to be a dispositional order because it 
orders DFS to begin termination proceedings.  In any event, the order certainly 
affects Mother's substantial rights as it has the effect of halting 
reunification attempts.  Therefore, 
we will treat it as an appealable order.  
Id., at ¶64.    

 

[¶24]   On appeal, Mother argues that the 
juvenile court erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that 
reasonable 
efforts have been made to reunify the family, that there have been ongoing and 
persistent failures on behalf of Mother to comply with basic case plan 
requirements, and that the children's health and safety would be jeopardized by 
returning the children to Mother.  As provided by statute, the juvenile 
court is charged with conducting: 

 

a review 
hearing six (6) months from the date of the child's removal from the home, 
twelve (12) months from the date of the child's removal from the home, and not 
less than once every twelve (12) months thereafter.  At each of these review hearings the 
court shall review the case plan to determine:

(i)  The 
health and safety of the child;

(ii)  The 
continuing necessity for the placement;

(iii)  The 
appropriateness of the current placement;

(iv)  The 
reasonableness of efforts made to reunify the family and the consistency of 
those efforts with the case plan;

(v)  The 
appropriateness of the case plan and the extent of compliance with the case plan 
including the permanent placement of the child;

(vi)  If 
progress has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating 
placement outside the home and the extent of that progress; 
and

(vii)  The 
date the child is expected to be returned to the home or placed for adoption or 
legal guardianship.  

 

Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 14-3-431(c).  These criteria 
help the court determine the appropriateness of its disposition, and it appears 
that it is in this context that the juvenile court made the findings Mother 
claims were in error.  

 

[¶25]   Mother's argument on this issue is 
framed as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.  As we have previously explained, 
termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence, but child 
neglect need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence.  In re "H" Children, ¶39.  "In the realm of due process, this is 
consonant with the requirement that notice and the opportunity to be heard must 
be appropriate to the nature of the case."  
Id.   
Additionally, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-424(a) provides that hearings under 
the Child Protection Act are to be conducted in "an informal but 
orderly manner and separate from other proceedings not included under this 
act."  (Emphasis added.)  Thus, the formalities of the proceedings 
themselves and the notice and opportunity to be heard provided in a neglect 
proceeding are not the same as that in a termination proceeding.1  Accordingly, we review the court's 
findings only in the context of a review hearing in a neglect proceeding and 
under the preponderance of the evidence standard that is applicable to neglect 
proceedings.  See Wyo. Stat. 
Ann. § 14-3-425; In re "H" Children, ¶39; but see Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 14-3-429(a)(iv) where clear and convincing evidence is required to show 
that reasonable efforts were made to prevent the initial removal from the 
home.2   Although the juvenile court's 
findings in this case may be similar to several of the findings required in 
order to terminate parental rights, they must be fully litigated in a 
termination proceeding under the applicable clear and convincing standard.  See In re "H" Children, 
¶39; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii).

 

[¶26]   The juvenile court's first finding 
is that there had been reasonable efforts to reunify the family.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-431(c)(iv).  We conclude that 
there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to make this 
determination.  Six MDT meetings 
were held to assess the case.  At 
each of these meetings the MDT encouraged Mother to complete her case plan and 
offered assistance.  The MDT wrote 
four case plans for Mother that outlined the steps she would have to take to 
achieve reunification.  While Mother 
was incarcerated, the MDT tailored case plans to her situation.  DFS arranged overnight-unsupervised 
visits between the children's maternal grandmother and the children while Mother 
was incarcerated.  This allowed 
Mother visitation with her children because her mother took the children to the 
Women's Center twice a month.  
Additionally, the MDT requested and the court appointed a CASA worker to 
facilitate providing services to Mother and the children.  Immediately upon her release from the 
Women's Center, Mother was allowed visitation with the children, and the 
children were allowed to live with Mother within two weeks of her release.  DFS offered Mother transportation to 
visitation, recommended Mother for counseling services, and assisted Mother in 
procuring suitable housing.  It is 
true that the rehabilitative efforts after Mother was released from the Women's 
Center were short lived.  However, 
over the course of the plan the above-noted facts show that reasonable efforts 
were made to reunify the family.  

 

[¶27]   Next, the court found that there 
were ongoing and persistent failures by Mother to comply with the case 
plan.  See § 14-3-431(c)(v) 
and (vi).  Mother argues that she 
complied with the case plan.  She 
asserts that the MDT recommended termination based on criteria that were never a 
part of the written case plan, for example, that she had contact with Father and 
that she consumed alcohol.  These 
issues aside, part of Mother's case plan was to obtain suitable housing, that 
she maintain steady and suitable employment, and that she properly care for the 
children. 

 

[¶28]   Mother was evicted due to her 
violation of the rules at transitional housing.  Mother then chose to move in with 
Impong, but would not give DFS information about him so that DFS could ensure 
that the children would be safe around him and that the housing was "safe, 
stable, and secure."  Similarly, 
Mother left her job on her own volition and then began working for Impong who 
"would be paying her under the table and she would never get a formal 
paycheck."  In fact, the letter 
Mother obtained from Impong stated that her "income has yet to be determined, 
and may be subject to fluctuational changes."  As such, her work could be characterized 
as less than steady and suitable.  
It was documented that Mother was leaving the children unattended or 
without suitable attention.  Thus, 
we conclude that in the context of a review hearing this evidence is sufficient 
in itself for the juvenile court to find that Mother has failed to comply with 
the case plan which meant that progress was not being made toward alleviating or 
mitigating the causes necessitating placement outside the home.    

 

[¶29]   Likewise, there was sufficient 
evidence for the court to find that the children would be jeopardized by return 
to Mother's custody. See § 14-3-431(c)(i), (ii), (vi), and (vii).  Mother exposed the children to drugs and 
alcohol.  Mother drank herself to 
the point of intoxication, leaving her unable to care for the children.  The children were exposed to drugs 
because of Mother's contact with Father who had drug paraphernalia and was under 
the influence of drugs.  Mother 
allowed the children to ride in a car where the driver was intoxicated.  The children were additionally exposed 
to instability due to Mother's lack of employment and housing.  Furthermore, it was Mother who alerted 
DFS to safety concerns when the children were with Father, yet she disregarded 
this safety concern.  These facts 
combine to show that the children were currently in jeopardy and could not be 
immediately returned to Mother.  

 

[¶30]   At the time of the final review 
hearing, this case had been pending for nineteen months.  With few exceptions, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
14-3-431(d) requires the State file a petition to terminate parental rights when 
a child has been placed in foster care under the responsibility of the State for 
fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months.  One such exception is if the state 
agency has documented a compelling reason that the filing of the petition is not 
in the best interests of the child.  
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-431(d)(ii).  
As part of her argument Mother asserts that the MDT had documented, and 
the court had found, a compelling reason not to terminate Mother's parental 
rights because she was incarcerated.  
Once Mother was released and had an opportunity to attempt reunification, 
even though such an opportunity was short lived, the juvenile court was well 
within its rights to determine that this compelling reason no longer 
existed.    

 

[¶31]   We, therefore, find that there was 
sufficient evidence for the court to make these findings in the context of a 
review hearing in a neglect proceeding.  
As such, the court's disposition was that DFS no longer had to make 
attempts to reunify the family.  
Based on the circumstances and the evidence presented, we do not believe 
the court erred in making these determinations and ordering DFS to begin 
termination proceedings.  

 

Fundamental 
Rights

 

[¶32]   Mother's second issue is that her 
fundamental rights were violated by the MDT's decision to recommend terminating 
her parental rights.  The thrust of 
Mother's argument is that at the June 4, 2003 review hearing, the court gave her 
forty-five days to comply with her case plan, yet the MDT recommended well 
before expiration of this time that termination be pursued.  We conclude that the MDT's actions did 
not violate Mother's fundamental rights.  
Certainly, as Mother asserts, the application of the termination of 
parental rights statutes is a matter for strict scrutiny.  See SD v. Carbon County Dep't of 
Family Servs., 2002 WY 168, ¶5, 57 P.3d 1235, ¶5 (Wyo. 2002).  However, just as with the first issue, 
we must consider that this was a neglect proceeding, not a termination 
proceeding.  The MDT does not have 
the power to terminate Mother's parental rights, but simply makes 
recommendations to the juvenile court.  
Additionally, while the court ordered DFS to begin termination 
proceedings, Mother's parental rights have not been terminated.  Until actual termination occurs, Mother 
has residual parental rights.  
See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(x) (LexisNexis 
2003).

 

[¶33]   Furthermore, the court ordered 
Mother to comply with DFS requests for information.  At the sixth MDT meeting it became 
apparent that Mother was reluctant to share information with DFS regarding her 
living situation and employment with Impong.  Thus, it was apparent that DFS would not 
be able to verify whether Mother had complied with her case plan.  It also appeared that future 
rehabilitative efforts would be unsuccessful, as Mother had adopted the attitude 
that what she did was her business and not that of DFS.  Therefore the MDT decided to recommend 
termination of parental rights.

 

[¶34]   Although the MDT recommended 
termination prior to the expiration of the forty-five-day time frame, it is 
clear the court did not order DFS to begin termination until after the period 
had elapsed.  The MDT has no power 
to terminate parental rights, but merely makes a recommendation.  It is the court's duty to determine 
disposition.  Indeed, the juvenile 
court heard argument regarding the shortening of time but nevertheless decided 
to take the MDT's recommendation.  
Had the court found the MDT's actions to be in violation of its order, it 
could have ordered that Mother be extended more time to comply.  Furthermore, Mother did not come to 
court and show that new strides had been made from the July 1, 2003 MDT meeting 
to the August 6, 2003 review hearing and has not shown how she was prejudiced by 
the MDT's actions.  We therefore 
find Mother's arguments unpersuasive.  

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶35]   We affirm the court's Order 
Following Review Hearing.  As 
described above, the State presented sufficient evidence for the juvenile court 
to make the contested findings in the context of a review hearing in a neglect 
proceeding.  Additionally, Mother's 
fundamental rights were not violated. 

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1The 
GAL's statement of the issues states that the court found by clear and 
convincing evidence that Mother's parental rights should be terminated.  However, this was not a termination 
proceeding and, as noted above, the court's findings are in the context of a 
review hearing in a neglect proceeding.

 

2As 
noted in the fact section, such a finding in this case was made at the initial 
hearing.