Title: Matter of RJP

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Matter of RJP1988 WY 120761 P.2d 1000Case Number: C-88-3Decided: 09/26/1988Supreme Court of Wyoming
In the Matter 
of the Termination of Parental Rights of RJP, JSN, VME, and AJW, Minor 
Children.

 
 
ZLW, Appellant 
(Defendant)

 
 
v.

 
 
JOHNSON COUNTY 
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellee 
(Plaintiff)

 
 
Thomas C. Wilson, of Tate & 
Wilson, Sheridan, for Appellant.

 
 
Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General, 
Peter J. Mulvaney, Deputy Attorney General, and Richard E. Dixon, Assistant 
Attorney General, Cheyenne, for Appellee.

 
 
Paul G. Jarvis, Guardian Ad Litem. 

 
 
Before Cardine, C.J., and Thomas, 
Urbigkit, Macy, and Golden, JJ. Urbigkit, J., filed a specially concurring 
opinion. 

 
 
Golden, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1.]     Appellant ZLW seeks 
reversal of the district court's orders terminating her parental rights to her 
four minor children under the provisions of W.S. 14-2-309 (July 1986 Repl.). ZLW 
asserts the evidence failed to establish that:

 
 
1. The children had been left in the 
care of another person without provision for their support and without 
communication from ZLW for a period of at least one year, 
and

 
 
2. ZLW abused or neglected her 
children, Johnson County Department of Public Assistance and Social Services' 
(D-PASS) rehabilitation efforts on ZLW's behalf were unsuccessful, and the 
children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by remaining with or 
returning  to 
ZLW.

 
 

[¶2.]     We affirm the district 
court's termination of ZLW's parental rights to her four children under the 
provisions of W.S. 14-2-309(a)(iii), since after strict scrutiny we find the 
evidence clearly and convincingly established that ZLW abused and neglected her 
children, rehabilitation efforts were unsuccessful, and the children's health 
and safety would be seriously jeopardized if they remained with or were returned 
to ZLW.

 
 

[¶3.]     D-PASS conceded, and we 
agree, the evidence was insufficient on appellant's first claim of error; 
therefore, we need not discuss that point. Since we rest our decision on a 
sufficiency of evidence determination, we also need not discuss the issue raised 
by D-PASS, and challenged by appellant, concerning the dispositive effect of 
appellant's alleged relinquishment of her children for 
adoption.

 
 

[¶4.]     In addition to 
terminating ZLW's parental rights, the district court noted that the natural 
father of one of the children (JSN) was dead and subsequently terminated the 
parental rights of each father of the other children. No father has appealed 
that termination action.

 
 

[¶5.]     ZLW was born on June 
10, 1957. As a child from the age of seven to the age of fourteen she was a 
victim  of her alcoholic 
stepfather's sexual molestation and abuse. At the age of fifteen she married to 
get away from that stepfather. The failure in the rehabilitation of ZLW is 
attributed to the trauma of her own childhood experiences which partially 
explains her inability to cope with the responsibilities of 
parenting.

 
 

[¶6.]     RJP was born to ZLW and 
BP, her natural father, on September 22, 1976. JSN was born to ZLW and JN, his 
natural father, on September 11, 1979. VME was born to ZLW and BE, her natural 
father, on November 10, 1983. AJW was born to ZLW and GW, his natural father, on 
January 9, 1985. Thus, each child has ZLW as a common natural mother, but has a 
different natural father.

 
 

[¶7.]     On the night of 
September 22, 1986, Sergeant Michael L. Dahmer of the police department in 
Buffalo, Wyoming, placed RJP, JSN, VME, and AJW into 
emergency protective shelter care because of an alcohol-induced, physically 
violent domestic quarrel between ZLW and GW, her husband, being waged in the 
children's presence. Two days later the county attorney for JohnsonCounty filed a petition under W.S. 
14-3-201 through 14-3-215 (July 1986 Repl.), alleging that the children were 
neglected and in need of supervision.  On October 7, 1986, the district court 
held a hearing on the petition. At the hearing ZLW and GW admitted the children 
were neglected and in need of supervision. The district court ordered D-PASS to 
retain custody of the children, ZLW to have visitation with the children, and 
ZLW to attend substance abuse counseling and parenting 
classes.

 
 

[¶8.]     The district court 
reviewed the matter again on May 5, 1987. As a result of that review, the 
district court ordered D-PASS to retain custody of the children and a subsequent 
hearing on the petition to determine whether D-PASS should retain custody of the 
children or whether ZLW was capable of taking care of 
them.

 
 

[¶9.]     On October 26, 1987, 
the county attorney for JohnsonCounty filed a petition to terminate ZLW's 
parental rights to her children. Following a two-day trial which began on 
January 12, 1988, the district court ordered that ZLW's parental rights to each 
of her four children be terminated.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 

[¶10.]  In reviewing the sufficiency of the 
evidence presented at trial, we use the analysis we have consistently followed 
in cases of this kind. See, e.g., In the Interest of JG, 742 P.2d 770, 
773 (Wyo. 1987); Matter of MLM, 682 P.2d 982, 985-986  (Wyo. 1984); Matter of GP, 679 P.2d 976, 980-982, 1005-1007 (Wyo. 1984). Under this analysis 
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;

 
 
4. Exercise strict scrutiny in 
reviewing whether the evidence clearly and convincingly proves the elements of 
parental rights termination;

 
 
5. Define "abuse" as the 
nonaccidental inflicting or causing to be inflicted physical or mental injury, 
harm or imminent danger to the physical or mental health or welfare of a child. 
W.S. 14-3-202(a)(ii) (June 1986 Repl.);

 
 
6. Define "mental injury" as an 
injury to the psychological capacity or emotional stability of a child as 
evidenced by an observable or substantial impairment in that child's ability to 
function within a normal range of performance and behavior  with due regard to that child's culture. 
W.S. 14-3-202(a)(ii)(A) (June 1986 Repl.)

 
 
7. Define "neglect" as the parent's 
failure or refusal to provide adequate care, maintenance, supervision, education 
or medical, surgical or any other care necessary for the child's well-being. 
W.S. 14-3-202(a)(vii) (June 1986 Repl.)

 
 
ABUSE, NEGLECT, 
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL INJURY

 
 

[¶11.]  ZLW admitted at the October 7, 1986, 
hearing that she had neglected the children and that she had discussed putting 
them up for adoption. In addition to the documents signed by ZLW on July 13, 
1987, purporting to relinquish her parental rights and consenting to their 
placement for adoption, the evidence clearly and convincingly shows ZLW was 
abusive to and neglected each of her four children over an extended period of 
time.

 
 

[¶12.]  With reference to RJP, the evidence 
was:

 
 
1. When RJP was an infant in 1977, 
ZLW placed her in a foster home for about six months because ZLW, then nineteen 
years old, was having problems coping with the child.

 
 
2. RJP's teachers from kindergarten 
through fourth grade testified that until she was placed in foster care RJP 
frequently came to school unclean and inappropriately dressed in adult women's 
clothing.  RJP was very angry, 
defiant, depressed and moody because of her home environment, and this emotional 
state was reflected in her inability to play with and make friends at school. 
She was unruly toward her classmates; she did not smile or respond to 
affection.

 
 
3. In kindergarten RJP was 
frequently absent from school, at one point having missed twenty-three of forty 
school days. The school nurse at RJP's school observed bruises and welts on RJP 
on several occasions. During class discussions RJP would tell her classmates 
that she, not her mother, had the responsibility to get her brothers and sister 
up in the morning, fed, and off to school.

 
 
4. The first ten years of RJP's life 
were filled with visions of arguments, drunkenness and physical violence between 
ZLW and several different men.

 
 
5. During the 1987-1988 school year 
ZLW had not attended school conferences to discuss RJP's 
progress.

 
 
6. On September 22, 1986, when first 
placed in protective custody, RJP and the three other children were dirty, 
smelly and frightened.

 
 
7. Initially in foster care, RJP was 
a very troubled child, demonstrating anger, defiance, and fits of rage when she 
did not get her own way. She rarely smiled;  she never cried. At first, RJP did not 
know to bathe daily, to brush her teeth daily or to have clean sheets. She was 
hungry and would hide food.

 
 
8. During foster care, RJP changed 
dramatically for the better. Now RJP smiles and laughs a great deal. She makes 
friends and interacts well with them and takes pride in her personal appearance. 
Her foster parent analogized the change in RJP to the difference between "night 
and day."

 
 
ZLW admitted she could not cope with 
RJP as the child was growing up. On at least one occasion ZLW grabbed RJP and 
threw her across the room on the floor after trying to spank her. ZLW reverted 
to RJP's age level and was locked in sibling rivalry with her, the sad result of 
which was an environment of continual bickering, arguments, physical and mental 
abuse, and neglect.

 
 

[¶13.]  With reference to JSN, the evidence 
was:

 
 
1. In December, 1981, JSN received 
emergency hospital care for several bruises over his midsection, buttocks and 
legs. The physical evidence strongly indicated JSN had been sexually abused. ZLW 
had left JSN with babysitters and suspected they may have harmed her 
son.

 
 
2. JSN's teachers from kindergarten 
through second grade testified that until  he was placed in foster care JSN 
frequently came to school inappropriately dressed and hungry. His behavior was 
characterized with displays of anger, crying, and temper tantrums many times a 
day. He did not play well with his classmates. ZLW had not attended school 
conferences during the 1987-1988 school year to discuss JSN's 
progress.

 
 
3. School teachers, the school 
nurse, and the summer program teacher all testified to seeing JSN wearing 
"badges of abuse" such as bruises on his legs and bruises and welts on his head. 
JSN said the bruises and welts were caused by GW beating him with a belt and 
hitting him while wearing a ring. ZLW says she, not others, inflicted this 
physical harm.

 
 
4. On occasion, as a disciplinary 
measure ZLW confined JSN to his bedroom for two weeks. He urinated in his pants 
and defecated in a diaper box while so confined.

 
 
5. Like his brother and sisters, 
when first placed in protective custody on the night of September 22, 1986, JSN 
was dirty, smelly, and frightened. As a result of his foster care, he is 
improving in his social development and academically, and responds positively to 
the love and affection given him in foster care.

 
 
With reference to VME  and AJW, the evidence 
was:

 
 
1. Like RJP and JSN, when taken into 
protective custody on September 22, 1986, VME and AJW were dirty, smelly, and 
frightened. In foster care they were kept clean and their behavior 
improved.

 
 
2. On March, 9, 1987, VME and AJW 
were returned to ZLW; one month later ZLW returned them to foster care, stating 
she could not handle the children at that time.

 
 
3. Again, on June 4, 1987, VME and 
AJW were returned to ZLW. From June 9 through June 15, 1987, ZLW left the 
children with her mother while ZLW left town with her 
boyfriend.

 
 
4. On or about July 7, 1987, ZLW 
told John S. Noteboom, a social worker with D-PASS, that she was not cut out to 
be a mother and did not want the responsibility for these young children. During 
the time period of ZLW's custody of VME and AJW, they attended a day care 
program. The day care teacher testified that VME and AJW came to day care dirty 
and smelly; she had to bathe them on about eight occasions. Their clothing was 
unkempt, smelly, and inappropriate for summer weather. The day care teacher 
described VME as a very tense child who frequently cried in her sleep at nap 
time. VME's interaction with day care classmates was characterized  by VME's fits of anger, screaming, and 
yelling. AJW had an oozing ear infection requiring medical attention. Both VME 
and AJW ate many more food servings than the other children, evidencing their 
hunger. On several occasions when ZLW picked up VME and AJW at day care, ZLW 
smelled of alcohol.

 
 
5. On July 13, 1987, ZLW returned 
VME and AJW to D-PASS for foster care placement. In reply to Mr. Noteboom's 
discussing her reentry into psychotherapy with new intensity, she said she did 
not want to go through it. Instead, she discussed relinquishing her parental 
rights and consenting to placing all four of her children for adoption. She 
signed documents for this purpose. Although several weeks later she changed her 
mind about relinquishing parental rights, her visitations with her children from 
summer of 1987 until the hearing date in January, 1988, were hit and miss. Of 
123 scheduled visitations, she missed seventy-three. She was late or returned 
the children early on another twenty-nine visits.

 
 
6. She was not with AJW when he 
underwent a surgical procedure in December, 1987, and did not visit with AJW's 
foster parent about the results of that procedure. ZLW did not attend AJW's 
birthday  party held a few days 
before the trial in this matter.

 
 
7. VME's and AJW's foster parent was 
concerned about VME's vivid description of "french-kissing" and VME's and AJW's 
graphic play-demonstration of performing sexual intercourse. Similarly, their 
foster parent was concerned about VME's and AJW's frequent discussions and 
demonstrations of how GW used to beat up ZLW.

 
 

[¶14.]  In light of our strict scrutiny review of 
the evidence presented by D-PASS and considered by the district court, we are 
satisfied that the evidence clearly and convincingly established that ZLW 
neglected and abused each of her four children. Having found overwhelming 
evidence of neglect and abuse, we next consider whether efforts by an authorized 
agency or mental health professionals have been successful in rehabilitating 
ZLW.

 
 
REHABILITATION 
EFFORTS

 
 

[¶15.]  William Clark, a social worker and mental 
health counselor for NorthernWyomingMentalHealthCenter in Sheridan, Wyoming, described ZLW as having a chronic 
histrionic personality disorder and an alcohol abuse problem. Her condition is 
characterized by "sudden changes in mood and affect," overreaction to daily 
events resulting in temper tantrums and "low level impulse  control," and difficulty in forming and 
maintaining interpersonal relationships. Reed S. Morrill, Ph.D., family and 
child specialist at the same mental health center, agreed with that description. 
Dr. Morrill attributed ZLW's condition to her childhood experiences of parental 
neglect, abuse, and sexual molestation at the hands of her 
step-father.

 
 

[¶16.]  ZLW's condition seriously interferes with 
her relationships with her children. She sees herself as a "victim" when her 
children make common daily demands on her as a parent, and she seeks out 
partners who will further victimize her. She does not function on a normal adult 
level when trying to control her anger. She has had a very difficult time 
overcoming the denial of her early victimization which has affected the choices 
she makes in her adult life. ZLW's primary means of socialization has been to go 
to bars several times a week to consume alcohol and socialize with bar patrons. 
On occasion when ZLW was working in a bar, ZLW brought the children into the bar 
with her for several hours. Characteristic of her condition, she has tended to 
resist counseling and psychotherapy; her resistance and denial of problems seem 
over and above that attributable  to 
her disorder. Appropriate treatment for ZLW would consist of intense 
psychotherapy counseling twice weekly over two years. Without successfully 
completing such intensive treatment, ZLW will probably continue to treat her 
children as she herself was treated as a child.

 
 

[¶17.]  With this appreciation and understanding 
of ZLW's condition, D-PASS tried to rehabilitate her by planning and initiating 
parenting classes and counseling sessions for her. D-PASS urged her to attend a 
weekend intervention program for alcohol abuse. Although she made initial 
progress and some improvement was observed, ZLW ultimately failed at 
rehabilitation in large part because of her sporadic attendance at counseling 
sessions and parenting classes, her ambivalence in wanting to improve, her lack 
of desire to become involved in an alcohol support group, and her lack of desire 
to place her children's needs above her own.

 
 

[¶18.]  Perhaps most telling is ZLW's own 
description of her attitude toward the rehabilitation efforts. When asked at 
trial if she was willing to continue with counseling as recommended by the 
alcohol abuse intervention program, she answered: "I would and I wouldn't. * * * 
* I guess it would be like trying  to fit it into the schedule and still 
have time for other things."

 
 

[¶19.]  In the opinion of her counselors Mr. 
Noteboom, Mr. Clark, and Dr. Morrill, ZLW's rehabilitation efforts have been 
unsuccessful.

 
 

[¶20.]  Considering the evidence presented by 
D-PASS and considered by the district court, we are satisfied that the evidence 
clearly and convincingly established that the appropriate rehabilitation efforts 
on ZLW's behalf failed.

 
 
CHILDREN'S HEALTH 
AND SAFETY

 
 

[¶21.]  Finally, we consider whether the 
children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by returning them to 
ZLW. Mr. Clark testified that, based upon his expertise and experience with ZLW, 
he was concerned about ZLW's ability to control her impulses. He believes she 
would harm the children when she lost control, and he believes ZLW is still 
likely to become involved with men whom she will allow to victimize her. He 
worries about what might happen to the children because of ZLW's poor choice of 
men partners, both in terms of the mental harm to the children in witnessing the 
victimization of their mother and the physical harm to the children at the hands 
of such men. Dr. Morrill, based upon his expertise and experience with ZLW, 
shares  Mr. Clark's 
opinion.

 
 

[¶22.]  Bruce L. Andrews, a family and child 
therapist at Northern Wyoming Mental Health Center in Sheridan, Wyoming, based 
upon his expertise and experience with JSN, testified that a very volatile or 
dangerous situation would exist if the children were returned to ZLW, 
particularly with regard to RJP and JSN. He would expect to see harmful 
confrontations between ZLW and RJP. In his view, ZLW is so emotionally involved 
in defending herself, she would find it difficult to protect her children from 
her men friends or from her own anger resulting from her frustrations created by 
her children's needs. According to Mr. Andrews, these children have had a 
lifetime of "dysfunctional role modeling," and if it continues, the result will 
be a "protracted dysfunctional learning period" for all the children. Mrs. Lynn 
Y. Carroll, also a family and child therapist at the mental health center, 
agreed with Mr. Andrews. In light of her expertise and experience with RJP, Mrs. 
Carroll is concerned about RJP's safety if she were to be returned to ZLW. She 
stated that RJP is pretty and attractive and would be very vulnerable in view of 
ZLW's demonstrated pattern of associating with unstable  men. In Mrs. Carroll's opinion, these 
children have suffered serious developmental delays which would continue if they 
returned to ZLW.

 
 

[¶23.]  We conclude that the testimony provides 
clear and convincing evidence in support of the district court's finding that 
the children's health and safety would be seriously jeopardized by their return 
to ZLW.

 
 

[¶24.]  As a result of our strict scrutiny in 
reviewing the evidence considered by the district court in its application of 
the relevant provisions of the parental-rights termination statute, we hold the 
evidence clearly and convincingly established that the state's compelling 
interest in protecting the welfare of these four children can be met only by 
terminating ZLW's parental rights to each child.

 
 

[¶25.]  The Judgment of the district court is 
affirmed. 

 
 
Urbigkit, J., files a specially 
concurring opinion.

 
 
URBIGKIT, Justice, specially 
concurring.

 
 

[¶26.]  I concur with the decision of this court, 
but write further to consider the fundamental principles involved. The familial 
right of both the parent and child is a fundamental liberty interest protected 
by state and federal constitutions. DS and RS v. Department of Public 
Assistance & Social Services, 607 P.2d 911 (Wyo. 1980). Of 
countervailing interest in societal concern is the more demanding decision to 
define  and protect the best 
interest of the child. In the Interest of JL, 761 P.2d 985 (Wyo. 
1988).

 
 

[¶27.]  This court has said "that the 
best-interest language must be read in para materia with the abuse, neglect or 
abandonment standard." And then said: "This means, for example, that if the 
State seeks to terminate parental rights because of neglect, the State must show 
that the interests of the child require termination of the parental rights in 
order to protect the child from neglect." DS and RS, 607 P.2d  at 917. 
This is also the reason that efforts at rehabilitation and its failure becomes a 
significant "best interest" inquiry in termination hearing. In Interest of 
J.G., 742 P.2d 770 (Wyo. 1987). Evidence of abuse is a subject 
subsumed within the best interest determination as the basic decision to be made 
by the court. TR v. WashakieCounty Dept. of Public Assistance and 
Social Services, 736 P.2d 712 (Wyo. 1987).

 
 

[¶28.]  In the detail of this unhappy family 
experience, the best interest of the child standard clearly and persuasively 
justified termination. In the Interest of JL, 761 P.2d 985 (Wyo. 1988); Matter of  MLM, 682 P.2d 982 (Wyo. 
1984).