Title: IN THE INTEREST OF SNK, NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE INTEREST OF SNK, NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE V. THE STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES2005 WY 30108 P.3d 836Case Number: C-04-8Decided: 03/10/2005
 
 
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 
 
                                                                                                                                   

 
 
 
 
IN THE 
INTEREST OF SNK, a minor child:

 
 
NORTHERN 
ARAPAHO TRIBE,

 
 
Appellant

(Intervenor),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE STATE OFWYOMING, DEPARTMENT 
OF

FAMILY 
SERVICES,

 
 
Appellee

(Petitioner).

 
 

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

 
 
            
Christopher J. Schneider of Baldwin & Crocker, P.C., Lander, 
Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

 
 
            
Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Robin Sessions Cooley, Deputy 
Attorney General; Dan Wilde, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Nancy D. 
Conrad, Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT,  
JJ., and YOUNG, DJ.

 
 
 
 
  
            
VOIGT, Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      In this case, the 
Northern Arapaho Tribe (the Tribe) appeals the denial of its motion to vacate 
the foster care placement of SNK, an enrolled member of the Tribe, with her 
ex-stepfather.  After the parties 
had submitted their appellate briefs, SNK was removed from her ex-stepfather's 
home and returned to the legal and physical custody of her mother.  As a result, the issues presented have 
become moot and this appeal must therefore be dismissed.

 

 
 
[¶2]      Whether the 
return of SNK to the legal and physical custody of her mother renders the 
Tribe's appeal moot?

 
 
FACTS

 
 

[¶3]      We had a prior 
opportunity to examine the facts of this case in In re SNK, 2003 WY 141, 
78 P.3d 1032 (Wyo. 2003).  In that case, SNK was the subject of a 
juvenile neglect proceeding and was eventually placed in foster care with a 
non-Indian family.  Id. at ¶¶ 3-4, 78 P.3d  at 1033-34.  Since SNK was an 
enrolled Northern Arapaho Tribe member, the Tribe intervened in the action 
pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et 
seq. (hereinafter ICWA).  In 
re SNK, 2003 WY 141, ¶ 5, 78 P.3d  at 1034.  Despite the Tribe's intervention, the 
district court concluded that the ICWA was not applicable to the case.  Id. at ¶ 6, 78 P.3d  at 
1034.  The Tribe appealed that 
determination.  Id. at ¶ 7, 
78 P.3d  at 1035.  Shortly after the 
Tribe filed its appeal, SNK was removed from the non-Indian foster home and 
placed with her ex-stepfather.  
Id. at ¶ 19, 78 P.3d  at 
1038.  As a result, we dismissed the 
appeal, finding that "[a]ny determination by this court relating to the basis 
upon which the district court continued to place SNK in a non-Indian foster home 
. . . is moot in that it would be wholly ineffectual and of no practical 
effect."  Id.

 
 
[¶4]      Shortly after 
that appeal was dismissed, the Tribe filed a Motion to Vacate Current Foster 
Care Placement; Place the Child in the Foster Home of Jevon and Glenda Trosper; 
and Otherwise Comply with the Requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act 
(Motion to Vacate Placement).  In 
its motion, the Tribe asserted that SNK's placement with her ex-stepfather 
violated the ICWA.  No action was 
taken on the motion and after ninety days it was deemed denied pursuant to 
W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2).1  The Tribe timely 
appealed.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶5]      After the parties 
submitted their briefs in this case, the appellee, State of Wyoming, Department of 
Family Services (the State), submitted a motion to dismiss the appeal as 
moot.  Attached to the motion was a 
signed Consent Decree, which decree returned the legal and physical custody of 
SNK to her mother subject to conditions set forth in a separate Agreement in 
Support of Consent Decree.  The 
State asserted that because the child was returned to her mother, a "child 
custody proceeding" as defined in the ICWA no longer existed and therefore any 
opinion relating to the matter would have no impact on the parties and would 
therefore be moot.  The Tribe 
responded that although SNK was physically returned to her mother, permanent 
legal custody had not been restored because a violation of the conditions could 
result in the removal of SNK from her mother's home.

 
 

[¶6]      We have examined 
the mootness doctrine on numerous occasions.  In Bard 
Ranch Co. v. Frederick, 950 P.2d 564, 566 ( Wyo. 1997), we 
said:

 
 
Our 
general law on justiciability provides that courts should not consider issues 
which have become moot.  Gulf Oil Corp. v.     
 Wyoming  Oil and Gas 
Conservation Comm'n, 693 P.2d 227, 233 (Wyo.1985).  We do not decide cases when a decision 
will have no effect or pertains only to matters that might arise in the 
future.  McLain v. Anderson , 933 P.2d 468, 472 
(Wyo.1997).  A case is moot when the 
determination of an issue is sought which, if provided, will have no practical 
effect on the existing controversy.  
Id.  
Therefore, if events occur during the pendency of an appeal that 
cause a case to become moot or make determination of the issues unnecessary, we 
will dismiss it.  Id.; see also Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. 
v. Air Freight, Inc., 773 P.2d 911, 924-25 (Wyo.1989)

 
 
[¶7]      We agree with the 
State that the issues raised in this appeal have become moot.  This case no longer presents an existing 
controversy.  The relief sought by 
the Tribe was accomplished when SNK was removed from the custody of her 
ex-stepfather and returned to her mother.  
While we acknowledge that a failure by SNK's mother to comply with the 
conditions of the Consent Decree could necessitate a future proceeding, 
currently there exists no order upon which a decision of this Court could 
operate.  The only existing order is 
the Consent Decree returning SNK to her mother.  The Tribe signed this decree and does 
not appear to challenge its validity or argue that it violates the 
ICWA.

 
 
[¶8]      In addition to 
challenging the denial of its Motion to Vacate Placement, the Tribe raises other 
issues related to the proper application of the ICWA.  Specifically, the Tribe requests that we 
find that the so-called "existing Indian family" exception to the ICWA is not 
recognized in Wyoming and that we adopt the United States Bureau of Indian 
Affairs "Guidelines of State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings."  Although these matters may be properly 
before this Court at some time in the future, a determination of those issues 
within the factual context of this case would be advisory, as it would have no 
impact on the current proceeding.  
We have said:

 
 
Appellate 
courts must consider only matters actually before them on appeal, and they must 
not give opinions on controversies or declare principles of law which cannot 
have any practical effect in settling the claims of the litigants.  Only those questions which are necessary 
for the decision of the case must be considered, and no attempt should be made 
to further "lay down" a rule or precedent to the bench or bar of the state.  Questions not directly involved in an 
appeal, or not necessary or relevant to, or material in, the final determination 
of the cause, will not be considered or decided by an appellate court.  See 5 C.J.S., Appeal and Error § 1455 
(1958).

 
 

State 
Bd. of Equalization v. Jackson Hole Ski Corp., 745 P.2d 58, 59-60 ( Wyo. 1987).  We will not hand down a decision which 
cannot be given effect or which pertains to matters that may arise in the 
future.  Graham v. Wyoming Peace 
Officer Standards and Training Com'n, 737 P.2d 1060, 1063 (Wyo. 1987) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v.      Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Com'n, 693 P.2d 227, 
233 ( 
Wyo. 
1985)).

 
 

 
 
[¶9]      Because SNK has 
been returned to the legal and physical custody of her mother, the issues 
presented in this appeal have become moot and any decision of this Court with 
regard to those issues would be advisory.  
The appeal is dismissed.

 
 

FOOTNOTES

1W.R.C.P. 
6(c)(2) 
provides:

 
 
A 
request for hearing may be served by the moving party or any party affected by 
the motion within 30 days after service of the motion. Absent a timely request 
for hearing the court may, in its discretion, determine the motion without a 
hearing. A motion not determined within 90 days after 
filing shall be deemed 
denied. A party whose motion has been deemed denied shall have 10 days 
after the effective date of such denial to serve such pleadings or other papers, 
if any, as may be required or permitted.