Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO AEand DE, Minor Children: JD and SE v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO AEand DE, Minor Children: JD and SE v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2009 WY 78208 P.3d 1323Case Number: No. S-08-0246Decided: 06/15/2009
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2009

 
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO AE and DE, Minor 
children:

 
 
JD 
and SE,

 
 
Appellants

(Respondents),

 
 
v.

 
 
STATE 
OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County

The 
Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge

 
 
Representing 
Appellants:

Jakob 
Norman and Jamie Woolsey, Center Street Law Offices, LLC, Casper, Wyoming; 
Hampton Young, Jr., Law Office of Hampton M. Young, Jr., PC, Casper, 
Wyoming.  Argument by Ms. Woolsey 
and Mr. Young.

 
 
Representing 
Appellee:

Bruce 
A. Salzburg, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy Attorney General; 
Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General.  Argument by 
Ms. Kucera.

 
 
Guardian 
Ad Litem:

Corinne 
A. Burke Miller, Corinne A. Miller Law Office, Casper, 
Wyoming.

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

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]        
JD 
(Mother) and SE (Father) appeal from the district court's termination of their 
parental rights with their two minor children.  We will affirm.

 
 
ISSUES

 
 

[¶2]        
Mother 
states two issues, which we have reworded slightly:

 
 
1.         
Did the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, establish by 
clear and convincing evidence that reasonable efforts were made to reunify the 
family, and that the health and safety of the children would be jeopardized by 
returning them to Mother?

 
 
2.         
Did the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, establish by 
clear and convincing evidence that Mother is an unfit 
parent?

 
 
Father 
raises essentially the same issues, though with regard to family reunification, 
he further asserts that DFS failed to follow applicable rules and 
statutes.

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]        
On 
April 5, 2005, DFS received an anonymous telephone call indicating that Mother 
and Father were selling drugs from their home.  The caller also stated that the home was 
filthy, with dirty diapers spread around and spoiled food left on the living 
room floor and on the kitchen counters.  
DFS contacted the Casper Police Department, and requested a welfare check 
of the home.

 
 

[¶4]        
Upon 
arriving at the home, the police made contact with three adults, a 
three-year-old girl, and a two-year-old boy.  Both children wore only diapers, and 
were described as being very dirty.  
In the home, a police officer observed dirty diapers, rotten food, and 
garbage strewn on the floors.  The 
officer had trouble entering the children's bedroom because the doorknob was 
inoperable.  Eventually getting the 
door open, he observed a single mattress with no bed frame, sheets, or 
bedding.  The officer was struck 
with "a very intense odor," and observed fecal matter smeared on the mattress, 
walls, and furniture.  The officer 
closed the door again because he "was actually about ready to vomit." 

 
 

[¶5]        
In 
the parents' room, the officer observed blow torches lying on the bed, a bottle 
of weed killer on the dresser, and dirty clothes and garbage throughout the 
room.  As the officer left the 
bedroom, Mother told him that he might find methamphetamine pipes under the 
bed.  He asked for permission to 
search, and Mother consented.  Under 
the bed, he found a metal box containing several glass methamphetamine pipes, 
and many small bags of a kind he knew were used to carry methamphetamine.  Elsewhere in the house, he observed 
other chemicals and equipment of a kind used in manufacturing 
methamphetamine.

 
 

[¶6]        
At 
this point, the officer apparently made two decisions.  First, he decided that the children 
should be taken into protective custody, and he called DFS for assistance with 
that.  Second, he decided to call 
his sergeant to discuss arresting the adults in connection with the 
methamphetamine paraphernalia and precursor chemicals the officer had 
observed.  While speaking to his 
sergeant, however, the police officer began to cough uncontrollably and 
vomit.  The sergeant ordered the 
police officer to seek medical attention, and dispatched other law enforcement 
officials to the scene.

 
 

[¶7]        
Based 
on the police officer's request, a social worker from DFS arrived at the house 
to take custody of the children.  
She made similar observations of garbage, soiled diapers, and feces in 
the house, and of the children being dirty and unclothed.  When the social worker asked for some 
clothing to take with the children, Mother placed some clothing in a plastic 
bag, but could not find shoes for the children.  The clothing was later discarded because 
it was dirty and did not fit the children.  
The children, after being taken from the house, were delivered to a 
hospital for decontamination as the result of exposure to methamphetamine.  Both children were found to be 
developmentally delayed.  The 
younger child, for example, did not speak and could not use eating 
utensils.  He also had respiratory 
and other medical problems. 

 
 

[¶8]        
Following 
the search of the home, Mother and Father were arrested and charged with various 
crimes relating to the possession, manufacture, and delivery of 
methamphetamine.  Their charges also 
related to manufacturing methamphetamine in the presence of the children.  Pursuant to plea agreements, both 
parents were convicted on several charges.  
On January 4, 2006, Mother was sentenced on four counts, resulting in 
imprisonment for two to six years, and Father was sentenced on three counts, 
resulting in five to twelve years imprisonment.

 
 

[¶9]        
In 
the meantime, while the parents remained in custody, DFS filed a petition in the 
district court alleging child neglect, a claim later admitted by both Mother and 
Father.  Acting on the petition, the 
district court ordered that the children be kept in the custody of DFS.  Pursuant to the district court's order, 
DFS's multi-disciplinary team prepared a report on the children, recommending a 
case plan under which the parents would work toward reunification with the 
children.  The parents agreed to the 
case plan in August 2005.  The goal 
of the plan was family reunification or, failing that, placement of the children 
with relatives or other appropriate persons.  The parents agreed that, once their 
criminal charges were resolved and they were out of jail, they would attend 
parenting classes, submit to urinalysis testing, and obtain suitable housing and 
employment.  While the parents 
remained in jail, however, they were unable to perform the tasks called for in 
the case plan.  Mother did write 
several letters to the children while she was incarcerated, and the children 
sent her letters and photographs.  
Father apparently wrote to the children only twice.

 
 

[¶10]     
After 
various status conferences and interim hearings, the district court convened a 
disposition hearing on January 12, 2006.  
Finding that the children had been in DFS custody for approximately nine 
months and that the parents were serving substantial prison sentences, the 
district court concluded that reunification of the family was no longer a 
realistic goal.  It instead ordered 
a plan for termination of parental rights and adoption of the children.  In response, DFS filed a petition for 
termination of parental rights on April 12, 2006.  The hearing on this petition was not 
completed until March 31, 2008.  The 
trial court concluded that DFS had established, by clear and convincing 
evidence, that Mother's and Father's parental rights should be terminated.  Both parents have appealed the district 
court's termination of their parental rights.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 

[¶11]     
The 
standard of review we employ when considering a termination of parental rights 
has been set forth and explained in previous cases:

 
 
The 
case for termination of parental rights must be made by clear and convincing 
evidence. . . .  Because association 
with one's immediate family is a fundamental liberty interest, application of 
the "clear and convincing" standard to evidence supporting termination becomes 
the subject of strict scrutiny at the appellate level.  Exacting though such scrutiny may be, we 
undertake examination of the evidence in a light most favorable to the party 
prevailing below, assuming all favorable evidence to be true while discounting 
conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful party.  

 
 
The 
fundamental nature of the parent-child relationship also leads to strict 
construction of applicable statutes against those seeking termination and in 
favor of the non-consenting parent.  
When, however, the language of a statute conveys a clear and definite 
meaning, we neither face the need nor acquire the license to construe that 
statute.

 
 

DKM 
v. RJS, 
924 P.2d 985, 987 (Wyo. 1996) (internal citations and emphasis omitted); see also SD v. Carbon County Dep't of Family 
Servs., 2002 WY 168, ¶ 6, 57 P.3d 1235, 1238 (Wyo. 
2002).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

[¶12]     
We 
begin by narrowing the issues considered in this appeal.  The applicable Wyoming statute sets 
forth seven different bases on which parental rights may be terminated.  In this case, the district court 
concluded that the parental rights of Mother and Father should be terminated on 
three of these statutory bases:

 
 
(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:

 
 
            
(i)  The child has been left 
in the care of another person without provision for the child's support and 
without communication from the absent parent for a period of at least one (1) 
year.  In making the above 
determination, the court may disregard occasional contributions, or incidental 
contacts and communications; . . .

 
 
            
(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; . . . 
.

 
 

Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309 (LexisNexis 2007).  These bases are separate and 
"independent."  DKM, 924 P.2d  at 987.  Accordingly, while DFS may seek to 
terminate parental rights on more than one basis, it need not prove more than 
one.  "Proof of any one of those 
[bases] by clear and convincing evidence supports the termination of parental 
rights."  SLJ v. Wyoming Dep't 
of Family Servs., 
2005 WY 3, ¶ 32, 104 P.3d 74, 82 (Wyo. 2005).

 
 

[¶13]     
Subsection 
(i), quoted above, requires proof that the parent has not communicated with the 
children for a period of at least one year.  The record before us reflects that 
Mother often wrote to her children, and received letters and photographs in 
return.  On this basis, the district 
court declined to terminate her parental rights pursuant to subsection (i).  However, the termination of her parental 
rights must still be affirmed if there was clear and convincing proof that 
Mother's rights should be terminated under another subsection of the 
statute.

 
 

[¶14]     
Subsection 
(iii), also quoted above, requires proof that "reasonable 
efforts . . . have been unsuccessful in rehabilitating the family or the family 
has refused rehabilitative treatment."  
In their appeals, Mother and Father devote substantial attention to 
arguments that DFS did not make reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the 
family.  Father, in particular, 
asserts that DFS violated applicable statutory, regulatory, and policy 
requirements relating to rehabilitation efforts.  DFS counters that its rehabilitation 
efforts were reasonable, though it admits that the incarceration of Mother and 
Father rendered such efforts more difficult.  

 
 

[¶15]     
We 
note, however, that subsection (iii) of the statute is the only subsection that 
lists unsuccessful rehabilitation efforts as a requirement for terminating 
parental rights.  "The remaining six 
subsections of § 14-2-309(a) do not require DFS to make rehabilitation 
efforts."  SLJ, ¶ 32, 104 P.3d  at 83.  Accordingly, we need not consider the 
parents' arguments concerning rehabilitation efforts if there is another 
subsection of the statute under which their parental rights were properly 
terminated.

 
 

[¶16]     
We 
therefore focus this opinion on subsection (iv) of the statute, which provides 
that parental rights may be terminated upon clear and convincing proof that 
"[t]he 
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."  It is undisputed that Mother 
and Father were incarcerated due to felony convictions.  However, the fact of incarceration is, 
by itself, insufficient to establish that a person is unfit as a parent.  In re JLP, 774 P.2d 624, 630 (Wyo. 
1989); In re FM, 2007 WY 128, 
¶ 16, 163 P.3d 844, 849 (Wyo. 2007).  
We must further consider whether DFS provided clear and convincing 
evidence that Mother and Father were unfit to have custody and control of the 
children.

 
 

[¶17]     
Mother 
and Father emphasize that, in the language of this statutory provision, the 
question is whether "the parent is unfit."  The district court must consider the 
parents' fitness at the time of the hearing on the petition to terminate 
parental rights, because the "statute unambiguously requires a finding of present unfitness."  FM, ¶ 15 n.4, 163 P.3d  at 849 n.4 
(emphasis added).  Both parents 
claim that DFS, the children's guardian ad litem, and the district court were 
unduly focused on evidence concerning their fitness as parents at the earlier 
time when the children were taken into custody by DFS and the parents were 
arrested.

 
 

[¶18]     
The 
parents are correct that the appropriate question is their fitness as parents at 
the time of the hearing.  They 
stretch the argument too far, however, in asserting that evidence of their 
fitness at earlier times should be overlooked.  By itself, such evidence may not be 
sufficient to justify the termination of parental rights.  Evidence of past behavior is, however, 
plainly relevant in determining current parental fitness.  As we noted in a previous 
case:

 
 
It 
is certainly appropriate for the district court to rely on the details of 
Mother's life as demonstrating a pattern.  
[In re] AD, [2007 WY 23,] ¶ 26, 151 P.3d 
[1102,] 1108 [(Wyo. 2007)] ("courts often consider the family's history over a 
long period of time in determining whether parental rights should be 
terminated").  Focus, however, 
should be maintained on Mother's current status.

 
 

FM, 
¶ 19, 163 P.3d  at 849.  
Conforming to this precedent, we will first review evidence concerning 
Mother's and Father's past parenting behavior, then focus on more direct 
evidence of their fitness as parents at the time of the 
hearing.

 
 

[¶19]     
We 
have concluded that the evidence concerning their past parenting behavior 
demonstrates clearly and convincingly that Mother and Father were unfit.  The evidence of record was aptly 
summarized by the district court in these findings of fact from its Judgment 
terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father:

 
 
6.         
On April 5, 2005, at approximately 5:00 p.m., at their residence, both 
[children] were exposed to substantial risks to their health and 
safety.

 
 
7.         
The substantial risks to the health and safety of [the children] 
referenced in paragraph 6 above, were apparent, obvious, and the responsibility 
of their parents.

 
 
8.         
The substantial risks to the health and safety of [the children] 
referenced in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, included the following conditions found 
upon the premises:  dirty and 
cluttered rooms, rotting food, garbage, animal feces, fecal matter, . . . the 
presence of precursors to the manufacture of methamphetamine, the presence of 
methamphetamine pipes, a stench of feces, and an intense chemical 
odor.

 
 
9.         
The intense chemical odor referenced in paragraph 8 above, was of such 
nature and [e]ffect to make a police officer involved in the investigation of 
the premises ill.

 
 
10.       The risk to 
the health and safety of the children referenced in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, 
was reflected in the children's physical conditions, with the children being 
dirty and not fully clothed.

 
 
11.       The risk to 
the health and safety of the children referenced in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, 
also included significant conditions of concern to [the younger child's] health, 
including asthma, problems chewing, fine motor skill delays, speech delays, and 
developmental delays.

 
 
The 
district court further noted that Mother and Father had been convicted on 
charges that included the manufacture of methamphetamine in the presence of the 
children.  Convictions for crimes 
involving harm to or endangerment of children are strongly indicative that the 
parents are unfit to have custody and control of their children.  CDB v. DJE, 2005 WY 102, ¶ 7, 118 P.3d 439, 441 (Wyo. 2005).

 
 

[¶20]     
We 
now shift our focus from the parents' past behavior to their status at the time 
of the hearing.  The parents assert 
that, while incarcerated, they made efforts toward rehabilitation and improving 
their parenting skills.  Both Mother 
and Father testified that they had completed parenting classes, attended drug 
addiction therapy sessions, and participated in other beneficial classes and 
programs.  Mother was working toward 
her GED.  Father was working toward 
an associate's degree in carpentry.  
In accordance with the applicable standard of review, however, we must 
discount this evidence somewhat because Mother and Father were the unsuccessful 
parties below.  Unlike the district 
court, we have no opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses and determine 
what weight or significance the parents' testimony should be 
afforded.

 
 

[¶21]     
Examining 
the evidence in a light favorable to DFS, the prevailing party below, we find 
clear and convincing evidence that the parents' efforts yielded little progress 
in enhancing their fitness as parents.  
At the hearing, Mother testified that the younger child had suffered from 
extensive respiratory and other health problems since birth.  Yet she also testified that she had 
never considered whether manufacturing methamphetamine in her home might cause 
difficulties for a child with respiratory problems.  Asked why the children were dirty and 
dressed only in diapers, her response was that "they're typical little 
kids.  They're not going to stay 
dressed."  Questioned about the 
condition of the home, including the feces smeared throughout the children's 
bedroom, her response was that she "just didn't get up to clean the house that 
day."

 
 
Q.        But 
in one day it gets that messy?

 
 
A.        Well, 
I had my two kids, and . . . when you've got two little toddlers, you know, 
they're going to destroy a house, you know.  So, I mean, I was just letting them be 
typical little kids that day. . . .

 
 
Q.        So, 
clothes strewn everywhere; baked-on food in the kitchen; smell in the house; all 
that just happened in one day?

 
 
A.        
Yeah.

 
 
Q.        
Okay.  And feces on the wall 
just happened that day?

 
 
A.        Yeah, 
because I put [the children] in their room for a nap that 
day.

 
 
Q.        You 
didn't happen to notice the smell?

 
 
A.        Not 
until I got out of bed; no.

 
 
Father, 
when asked about the condition of the home, attempted to avoid responsibility by 
explaining that he "hadn't been home in probably four 
days."

 
 

[¶22]     
Based 
on this evidence, the guardian ad litem convincingly urges that the parents were 
clearly and convincingly shown to be unfit.  The parents' responses to questioning, 
she says, 

 
 
indicate 
that they have gained no insight into parenting and have not acquired the tools 
to parent.  The parents appear 
completely oblivious to the responsibilities of parenting such as being home to 
parent, providing proper supervision, providing proper hygiene, teaching [the 
children] the simple task of wearing clothing or not smearing their feces on a 
bedroom wall.  There was an utter 
lack of remorse, or contrition, [or] affirmation that ["]I have become a better 
parent and I will be a better parent to my children in the 
future.["]

 
 
Testimony 
by Mother and Father stands in contrast with that in FM, ¶ 17, 163 P.3d  at 849, where we 
thought it "worth noting that Mother testified that she is not the same person 
she was three years ago.  The 
classes she has taken in prison have given her better coping skills and 
parenting skills."  Our review of 
the record reveals that neither Mother nor Father presented testimony or other 
evidence indicating that they had achieved any comparable changes or 
improvements.

 
 

[¶23]     
What 
the record does contain is proof that Mother and Father were incarcerated on 
felony charges relating to the endangerment of the children, evidence of their 
past parenting failures, and indications that their parenting skills have not 
improved since then.  Together, this 
evidence provided the district court with clear and convincing proof that Mother 
and Father were incarcerated 
due to the conviction of a felony and, 
at the time of the hearing, were unfit to have custody or control of the 
children.  Their parental rights 
were properly terminated pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv), 
and we 
affirm the decision of the district court.