### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2013 WY 20

OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2012

February 20, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

LNP, A Minor Child:

KC,

Appellant

(Respondent),

v

.

CC and EC,

Appellees

(Petitioners). No. S

- 12

- 0155

Appe al from the District Court of Laramie County

The Honorable Michael Davis, Judge

Representing Appellant:

John M. Burman, Director, and Christopher Sherwood, Student Intern, University of

Wyoming, College of Law Legal Services Program. Argument by Mr. Sher wood.

Representing Appellees:

A aron J. Lyttle, Long, Reimer, Winegar, Beppler, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument

by Mr. Lyttle.

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

N O T I C E : T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f

o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n P a c i f

i c R e p o r t e r T h i r d

. R e a d e r

s

a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f

y t h e C l e r

k o f t h e S u p r

e m e C o u r

t

, S u p r e m e C o u r

t B u i l d i n g , C h e y e n n e , W y o m i n g

8 2 0 0 2

, o f a n y t y p o g r

a p h i c a l o r o t h e r f

o r m a l e r r

o r s s o t h a t c o r r

e c t i o n m a y b e m a d e b e f o r e f i n a l p u b l i c a t i o n i n

t h e p e r m a n e n t v o l u m e

.1

B U R K E

, J u s t i c e

.

[ ¶ 1 ] A p p e l l a n t

, K C

, ( “ Mother ” ), challenges the district court’s decision to appoint CC

and his wife, EC

, (“Grandparents”), as permanent guardians for Mother’s daughter, LNP.

Mother contends the guardianship proceedin g s w e r e s u b j e c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)

, and that the district court v i o l a t e d t h e p r o v

i s i o n s o f

the Act in establishing a plenary guardianship. Mother also contends the d i s t r i c t c o u r t

erred in concluding, under the ICWA, that returning LNP to Mother w o u l d l i k e l y r e s u l t i n serious emotional or physical damage

. We affirm.

I S S U E S

[ ¶ 2 ] M o t h e r p r e s e n t s t

h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s :

1

. Whether the district court failed to comply with the Indian

Child Welfare Act’s ten day notice requiremen t.

2

. Whether the district court received testimony from a

“qualified expert witness” as required by the Indian Child

Welfare Act.

3

. Whether the district court received clear and convincing

evidence that shows LNP’s return to the Appellant would

likely result in serious emotional or physical damage as

required by the Indian Child Welfare Act.

G r a n d p a r e n

t s s t a t e t h e i s s u e s i n a s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r m a n n e r

.

F A C T S

[ ¶ 3 ] A p p e l l a n t i s t h e m o t h e r o f L N P

, w h o w a s b o r n i n O k l a h o m a i n 2 0 0 6

. 1 D u r i n g t h e

s u m m e r o f 2 0 1 0

, G r a n d

p a r e n t s t r a v

e l l e d t o O k l a h o m a t o a t

t e n d t h e f u n e r a l o f a f

a m i l y

m e m b e r

. M o t h e r t o l d G r a n d p a r e n

t s t h a t s h e w a s s t r

u g g l i n g t o m a k e e n d s m e e t a n d w a s

h a v i n g t r o u b l e f

i n d i n g s h e l t e r f

o r h e r s e l f

, L N P

, a n d h e r t w o o t

h e r c h i l d r e

n

. G r a n d p a r e

n t s

o f f e r e d t o l e t L

N P l i v e w i t h t h e m i n C h e y e n n e

, a n d M o t h e r a g r e e d

.

[ ¶ 4 ] L N P b e g a n l i v i n g w i t h G r a n d p a r e n t s i n S e p t e m

b e r

, 2 0 1 0

. On September 8,

1 LNP’s father has had no contact with LNP for several years and did not participate in t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p proceedings.2

M o t h e r e x e c u t e d a h a

n d w r i t t e n l e t t e r c o n s e n t i n g t o Grandparents ’ “guardianship over ”

LNP. The letter stated that “I [KC] give per m ission to [Grandparents’] guardianship over

my daughter [LNP] while I’m away. For Schooling, Medical Assi [ s ] t a n c e

, E m e r g e n c y

Assi [ s ] tance or any other things that needs [sic] to be done while I’m away. ” W h e n L N P

came into Grandparents ’ care she was unde r w e i g h t a n d w a s “ s i c k a l l t h e t i m e

. ”

Grandparents also discovered welts on LNP’s buttocks, w h i c h t u r n e d o u t t o b e s y

m p t o m s

of impetigo.

[ ¶ 5 ] S o o n a f

t e r t a k i n g L N P i n t o t

h e i r c a r e

, G r a n d

p a r e n t s b e c a m e c o n c e r n e d b y L N P ’ s

behavior. LNP had nightmares and a hard time sleeping in her bed. She often chose t o sleep on the floor. LNP w a s v i s i b l y a f r a i d o f m e n a n d e x

h i b i t e d s e x

u a l i z e d b e h a v i o r

. Eventually, LNP told Grandparents t h a t s h e h a d b e e n “ h o n e y e d ” b y h e r “ m e a n d a d d y ”

while in Mother’s care. I n response, Gr andparents sought profession a l c o u n s e l i n g

services for LNP . Sherri Rubeck, a licensed professional counselor

, d i a g n o s e d L N P w i t h

disruptive behavior dis order and conclud ed that she had been sexually abused

.

[ ¶ 6 ] O n J

u n e 1 7

, 2 0 1 1

, G r a n d p a r e n t s f i l e d a P e t i t i on for the Appointment of

E m e r g e n c y T e m

p o r a r y G u a r d i a n s i n L a r a m

i e C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t

, s e e k i n g temporary

g u a r d i a n s h i p o f L

N P

. G r a n d p a r e n t s a t t a c h e d M o t h e r ’ s h a n d w

r i t t e n c o n s e n t t o t

h e guardianship. The court issued an ex parte order granting Grandpare nts ’ petition a n d s e t

the matter for hearing on June 22

. A f t e r h o l d i n g a h e a r i n g

, t h e c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r appointing Grandparents as temporary guardians of LNP.

[ ¶ 7 ] O n S e p t e m

b e r 3 0

, 2 0 1 1

, G r a n d p a r e n t s filed a motion to convert the temporary

g u a r d i a n s h i p t o a p l e n a r y g u a r d i a n s h i p , asserting that a plenary guardianship was in the

b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f L

N P

. G r a n d p a r e n t s a t

t a c h e d a “ C o n s e n t t o A

p p o i n t m e n t o f G

u a r d i a n

, ”

which was signed by Mother on June 25

. Two weeks later

, Mother filed a m o t i o n t o

terminate th e temporary guardianship. She a l s o o b j e c t e d t o t

h e c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e temporary guardianship to a plenary guardianship. T h e m o t i o n s w e r e s e t f o r h e a r i n g o n

November 29, 2011.

[ ¶ 8 ] O n N o v

e m b e r 2 1

, e i g

h t d a y s b e f

o r e t h e s c h e d u l e d h e a r i n g

, M o t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n

t o v a c a t e t h e t e m

p o r a r y g u a r d i a n s h i p

, a l l e g

i n g that L N P w a s a n “ I

n d i a n c h i l d ” a s d e f

i n e d

by the I ndian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)

, and asserting that t h e c o u r t h a d f a i l e d t o comply with the provisions of the Act in granting the temporary guardianship

. T h e

m otion s t a t e d t

h a t t h e c o u r

t ’ s t e m p o r a r y g u a r d i a n s h i p o r d e r h a

d f a i l e d t o m a k e a f

i n d i n g

,

s u p p o r t e d b y t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s

, t h a t M o t h e r ’ s c u s t o d y o f L N P

was likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to LNP, as require d u n d e r Section 1912(e) of the ICWA. At the beginning of the hearing on November 29

, t h e

court addressed Mother’s motion to vacate and decided that it would c onsider t h e applicability of the ICWA at that hearing

. The court proceeded to receive testimony f r o m

Mother, Grandparents , LNP’s counselor, and various individuals a c q u a i n t e d w i t h M o t h e r

and LNP

.3

[ ¶ 9 ] E v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a

t L N P m a y have descended from a

C h e r o k e e a n c e s t o r

. A s a r e s u l t

, t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d G r a n d

p a r e n t s t o p r o v i d e notice of the

proceedings to the Cherokee Nation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In response to

M o t h e r ’ s c l a i m t h a t a

d e q u a t e n o t i c e h a d n o t b e e n g i v e n i n a c c o r d a

n c e w i t h t h e I C W A

,

t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t c l o s e t h e r e c o r d a t t h e h e a r i n g

. T h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t w o u l d

p e r m i t r e c e i p t o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i f t h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n d e c i d e d t o i n t e r v e n e

. T h e

c o u r t c o n

t i n u e d t h e t e m

p o r a r y g u a r d i a n s h i p p e n d i n g n o t i f i c a t i o n f r o m t h e C h e r o k e e

N a t i o n a s t o w

h e t h e r L N P w a s

, i n t h e i r v i e w

, a n I n d i a n c h i l d u n d e r t

h e I C W A

. T h e c o u r t

n o t e d t h a t i t w o u l d r e f

r a i n f r o m i s s u i n g a f

i n a l d e c i s i o n u n t i l t h e t r i b e h a d a c h a n c e t o

r e s p o n d

.

[ ¶ 1 0 ] On January 23, the Cherokee Nation issued a letter stating that LNP had been

d e t e r m i n e d t o b e a n I

n d i a n c h i l d a s d e f

i n e d u n d e r t h e I C W

A

. The letter noted that the

t r i b e “ w i l l b e s t a f

f i n g t h i s c a s e t o d e t e r m

i n e w h a t a c t i o n

, i f a n y

, w i l l b e t a k e n i n t h i s

m a t t e r

. ” A t a s t a t

u s h e a r i n g o n J a n u a r y 2 5

, 2 0 1 2

, t h e c o u r t a s k e d M o t

h e r w h e t h e r s h e

w o u l d p r e f

e r t h a t t h e c o u r t i s s u e a d e c i s i o n a s t o g u a r d i a n s h i p o f L

N P

, o r w h e t h e r s h e

w o u l d p r e f

e r t o w a i t t o s e e i f t h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n w o u l d i n t e r v e n e

. M o t h e r s t a

t e d t h a t

s h e p r e f e r r e d t o w a i t

, a n d t h e c o u r t c o n t i n u e d t h e t e m

p o r a r y g u a r d i a n s h i p p e n d i n g f

u r t h e r

i n p u t f r o m t h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n

.

[ ¶ 1 1 ] A t a s u b s e q u e

n t s t a t u s h e a r i n g o n F e

b r u a r y 2 9

, t h e c o u r

t w a s a d v i s e d by the

p a r t i e s t h a t t

h e C h e r o k e e N ation had decided not to intervene or take other action relating

t o t h e c a s e

, a n d t h a

t t h e m a t t e r w a s r i p e f

o r d e c i s i o n

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s s u e d a n opinion

a n d order concluding that Mother was unfit to parent under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3

- 2

- 104(b)

, based on the evidence presented at the hearing held on November 29. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

also determined, pursuant to Section 1912(e) of the ICWA, that returning LNP to M o t h e r

was “likely to cause serious emotional damage to L.N.P.” The court e n t e r e d a n o r d e r

g r a n t i n g t h e g

u a r d i a n s h i p p e t i t i o n a n d d e n y i n g M o t h e r ’ s m o t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e

g uardianship

. T h e c o u r t n o t e d

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t “ B o t h W

y o m i n g l a w a n d t h e I C W

A

contempl a

t e t h a t a g

u a r d i a n s h i p u

n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o u l d c o n t i n u e o n l y s o l o n g as necessary to prevent further harm to L

. N

. P

. , a n d t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p m

u s t e n d i f

there is no longer risk of serious emotional harm.” M o t h e r a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s

or der

.

D I S C U S S I O N

I

. Notice of Guardianship Hearing under ICWA § 1912(a)

[ ¶ 1 2 ] In Mother’s first issue, she claims Grandparents did not provide the ten

- day n o t i c e of the guardianship hearing to LNP’s Indian tribe i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f

the I ndian C hild W elfare A ct . She contends that the failure to provide adequate n o t i c e constitutes reversible error, and requests that this Court terminate the gu ardianship.4

G r a n d p a r e n

t s d o n o t d i s p u t e t

h a t L N P i s a n “ I

n d i a n c h i l d ” a s d e f

i n e d u n d e r t h e I C W A

. 2

The y contend, however, that the I C W A ’ s n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t w a s n o t t r i g g e r e d b e c a u s e

the district court did not “know or have r e a s o n t o k n o w ” t h a t L N P w a s a n “ I

n d i a n c h i l d ”

at the time of the November 29 hearing

. T h e y a s s e r t that the district court “ h a d n o

reli able evidence that LNP was an Indian child before the hearing.” Grandparents f u r t h e r contend that, even if notice was required, the failure to provide s u c h n o t i c e c o n s t i t u t e s

harmless error.

[ ¶ 1 3 ] T h e r e l e v

a n t p r o v i s i o n o f t h e I

n d i a n C h i l d W e l f

a r e A c t p r o v

i d e s a s f o l l o w s :

§ 1 9 1 2

. P e n d i n g c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s

( a ) N o t i c e ; t

i m e f o r c o m m e n c e m e n t o f p r o c e e d i n g s ;

a d d i t i o n a l t i m e f

o r p r e p a r a t

i o n

. I n a n y i n v

o l u n t a r y

p r o c e e d i n g i n a S t a t e c o u r t

, w h e r e t h e c o u r t k

n o w s o r h a s

r e a s o n t o k

n o w t h a t a n I n d i a n c h i l d i s i n v

o l v e d

, t h e p a r t y

s e e k i n g t h e f

o s t e r c a r e p l a c e m e n t o f

, o r t e r m

i n a t i o n o f

p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o

, a n I

n d i a n c h i l d s h a l l n o t i f

y t h e p a r e n t o r

I ndian custodian and the Indian chil d’ s t r i b e

, b y r e g i s t e r e d

mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings

a n d o f t h e i r r i g

h t o f i n t e r v

e n t i o n

. I f t h e i d e n t i t y o r l o c a t i o n o f

t h e p a r e n

t o r I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n a

n d t h e t r i b e c a

n n o t b e

d e t e r m i n e d

, s u c h n o t i c e s h a l l b e g i v e n t o t h e S e c r e t a r y i n l i k e

m a n n e r

, w

h o s h a l l h a v

e f i f t e e n d a y s a f

t e r r e c e i p t t o p r o v

i d e the requ i s i t e n o t i c e t o t h e p a r e n t o r I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n a n d t

h e

t r i b e

. N o f

o s t e r c a r e p l a c e m e n t o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a

l

r i g h t s p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l b e h e l d u n t i l a t l e a s t t e

n d a y s a f t e r

r e c e i p t o f n o t i c e b y t

h e p a r e n t o r I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n a n d t

h e

tribe or the Secreta ry: Provided

, T h a t t h e p a r e n t o r I

n d i a n

c u s t o d i a n o r t

h e t r i b e s h a l l

, u

p o n r e q u e s t

, b e g

r a n t e d u p t o twenty additional days to prepare for such proceeding.

25 U .S.C. § 1912(a) (emphasis in original)

. T he Bureau of Indian Affairs

, t h e a g e n c y charged with the responsibility to implement the ICWA, has issued “ G u i d e l i n e s f

o r S t a t e

Courts; In dian Child Custody Proceedings,” r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e I n t e r i o r D e p a r t m e n t ’ s interpretation o f certain provisions of the Act

. 44 Fed. Reg. 67,584 et seq

. ( N o v

. 2 6

, 1979). Alt h o u g

h t h e B I A G u i d e l i n e s n o t e t h a

t t h e y d o n o t h a v

e “ b i n d i n g l e g i s l a t i v

e

2 The ICWA defines an “Indian child” as “ a n y u n m a r r i e d p e r s o n w h o i s u

n d e r a g e e i g h t e e n a

n d i s e i t h e r ( a ) a m e m b e r o f a

n I n d i a n t r i b e o r ( b ) i s e l i g i b l e f

o r m e m b e r s

h i p i n a n I n d i a n t r i b e a n d i s t h e b i o l o g i c a l

child of a member of an Indian tribe .” 25 USC § 1903(4).5

e f f e c t

, ” t h e G

u i d e l i n e s s t a t e t h a t a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s t a t u

t o r y l a n g u a g e i s

g i v e n “ i m

p o r t a n t b u t n o t c o n

t r o l l i n g s i g

n i f i c a n c e

. ” I

d

. ( c i t i n g B a t t e

r t o n v

. F r a n c i s

, 4 3 2

U

. S

. 4 1 6

, 4 2 4

- 2 5

, 9 7 S

. C t

. 2 3 9 9

, 2 4 0 5

, 5 3 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 4 8 ( 1 9 7 7 ) )

. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e

n o t i c e r e q

u i r e m e n t s o f t h e A c t

, t

h e B I A G u i d e l i n e s p r o v

i d e t h a t a state court “

h a s r e a s o n

to believe a child involved in a child c ustody proceeding is an Indian ” i n f i v e

n onexclusive circumstances. T h e f i r s t c i r c u m s t a n c e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e G

u i d e l i n e s i s

satisfied when “ A

n y p a r t y t o t h e c a s e

, I

n d i a n t r i b e

, I

n d i a n o r g

a n i z a t i o n o r p u b l i c o r private agency informs the court that the child is an Indian child.” 44 Fed. Reg. 67,58 6.

[ ¶ 1 4 ] I n M o t h e r ’ s p e t i t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e t e m

p o r a r y g u a r d i a n s h i p

, M o t h e r a s s e r t e d t h a t

“ T h e m i n o r c h i l d i s a n I

n d i a n c h i l d b e c a u s e s h e i s u n m a r r i e d

, u n d e r 1 8

, a

n d b a s e d o n t

h e

information and belief of [Mother], is a member of the Cherokee Nation due to the l i s t i n g

o f a l i n e a r a n c e s t o r o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d o n t

h e D a w e s C o m m i s s i o n R o l l s

. ” C o n s i s t e n t w i t h

t h e B I A G u i d e l i n e s

, w e f

i n d t h a t t h i s c o m

m u n i c a t i o n w a s s u f

f i c i e n t t o g

i v e t h e d i s t r i c t

court “reason to know” that LNP was an Indian child under the ICWA, th e r e b y t r i g g e r i n g the notice requirement contained in Section 1912(a) of the Act. Accordingly, d e s p i t e Mother’s late assertions of LNP’s Indian heritage, w e f i n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t e r r e d b y failing to require that adequate notice be provid ed to the Cheroke e N a t i o n p r i o r t o t h e

g uardianship hearing. However, we are unable to d iscern a n y h a r m M o t h e r m a y h a v e

suffered as a result of the error.

[ ¶ 1 5 ] In order to warrant reversal, an error must be injurious or prejudicial to the

a p p e l l a n t

. S p i l m a n v

. S t a t e

, 6 3 3 P

. 2 d 1 8 3

, 1 8 5 ( W y o

. 1 9 8 1 )

. P u r s u a n t t o W

. R

. A

. P

. 9

. 0 4

,

“ A n y e r r o r

, d e f

e c t

, i r r e g u l a r i t y o r v

a r i a n c e w h i c h d o e s n o t a f

f e c t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g

h t s s h a l l

b e d i s r e g a r d e d b y t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t

. ” T h e b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t a n e r r o r i s

p r e j u d i c i a l r e s t s w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t

. I n r e C l a i m o

f T a f f n e r

, 8 2 1 P

. 2 d 1 0 3

, 1 0 7 ( W y o

. 1 9 9 1 )

. A l t h o u g

h t h i s C o u r t h a s n o t h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o a p p l y W

. R

. A

. P

. 9

. 0 4 t o

I C W A ’ s n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t

, w e h a v e p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a

t n o t i c e w h i c h i s d e f

i c i e n t d u e t o

u n t i m e l i n e s s i s s u b

j e c t t o r e v

i e w f o r h a r m l e s s e r r o r

. I

n C o n n e r v

. B o a r

d o f C o u n t y

C o m m ’ r s , 2002 WY 148, ¶

¶ 15

- 18

, 54 P.3d 1274, 1280

- 81 (Wyo. 2002), we h e l d t h a t

failure to provide timely notice of a show cause hearing pursuant to W

. R

. C

. P

. 7 1

. 1 ( e ) ( 1 )

was error. We noted, howeve r, t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a d “ n o t a d d r e s s e d t h e n a t

u r e o f a n y

harm they may have incurred ” and, consequently, we held that the error was harmless.

Id. See also In re Cheyanne F. , 164 Cal. App. 4th 571, 576

- 77 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008)

( disagreeing with th e contention that th e “ I C W A m a n d a t e s r e v

e r s a l

, w i t h o u

t r e g a r d t o prejudice, if there is any deficiency in the notice given to the tribe or the BIA ” a n d

holding that omission of information in notice to the appellant’s tribe constituted

harmless error ). As in Conner , we find the deficient notice in this case i s s u b j e c t t o

review for harmless error.

[ ¶ 1 6 ] M o t h e r h a s m a d e n o a t t e m p t t o d e m o n s t r a

t e t h a t s h e w a s p r e

j u d i c e d b y the failure

t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e p r i o r t o t

h e g u a r d i a n s h i p h e a r i n g

. A t t h e h e a r i n g

, t h e d i s t r ict court

acknowledge d the ICWA’s notice requirement a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n6

a n d t h e B I

A w e r e e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b a s e d o n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d

a t t h e h e a r i n g

. T h e c o u r t o r d e r e d G r a n d p a r e n t s t o p r o v i d e s u c h n o t i c e

, f

i n d i n g t h a t n o t i c e

w a s a “ p r e r e q u i s i t e t o r e a c h i n g t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e

. ” I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t

h i s o r d e r

, t

h e

c o u r t h e l d t

h e r e c o r d o p e n t o a l l o w f

o r a d d i t i o n a

l e v i d e n c e i n t h e e v

e n t t h a t t h e t r i b e

d e c i d e d t o i n t e r v

e n e

. T h e C h e r o k e e N a t i o n

, a f t e r d e t e r m

i n i n g t h a t L

N P q u a l i f

i e d f o r

m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e t r i b e

, u l t i m a t e l y d e c i d e d n o t t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e c a s e

. I

n l i g h t o f t h e s e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, w e f

i n d t h a t t h e e r r o r w a s h a r m

l e s s

.

I I

. Testimony of Qualified Expert Witness under ICWA § 1912(e)

[ ¶ 1 7 ] I n h e r s e c o n d i s s u e

, M o t h e r contends the district court did not receive testimony

f r o m a “ q u a l i f

i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s ” supporting LNP’s p l a c e m e n t o u t s i d e o f t h e n a t u r a l

parents’ home, as required under the ICWA. The determination of w h e t h e r a w i t n e s s qualifies as an expert is v e s t e d w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d t h a t

d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l b e o v

e r t u r n e d o n l y w

h e n a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i s s h o w n

. S e i v e w

r i g h t

v

. State , 7 P.3d 24, 31 (Wyo. 2000)

. I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e h a s b e e n a n a b u s e o f

discretion, the ultimat e q u e s t i o n i s w

h e t h e r t h e c o u r t c o u l d r e a s o n a

b l y h a v e c o n c l u d e d a s

it did. DLH v. JLA (In re AMP) , 2012 WY 132, ¶ 9 , 286 P.3d 746, 748 (Wyo. 2012)

.

[ ¶ 1 8 ] M o t h e r c l a i m s t h a t M s

. R u b e c k w a s n o t a q u a l i f

i e d w i t n e s s b e c a u s e s h e “ d o e s n o t

have the profes sional qual ifications regarding, e x p e r i e n c e s o r e x

p e r t i s e w i t h

, o r

s u b s t a n t i a l k

n o w l e d g e o f I n d i a n c h i l d r e n

, t r i b a

l c u s t o m s

, o r I

n d i a n c h i l d r e a r i n g n o r m s

a n d s t a n d a r d s

, n o r d i d s h e e v e r c o n s i d e r t h e c h i l d ’ s a n c e s t r y b e f o r e m a k i n g h e r

conclusion.” Grandparents respon d that t h e t r i b a l c u s t o m s a n d p r e v a i l i n g s o c i a l a n d

cultural norms of the Cherokee Nation have no bearing on the facts of this case. T h e y

claim that such knowledge was not required in order to qualify Ms. Rubeck a s a n e x p e r t

witness under the ICWA.

[ ¶ 1 9 ] S e c t i o n 1 9 1 2 ( e ) o f t h e I C W A p r o v i d e s t h a t

N o f o s t e r c a r e p l a c e m e n t m a y b e o r d e r e d i n [ a f o s t e r c a r e

p l a c e m e n t ] p r

o c e e d i n g i n t h e a

b s e n c e o f a d e t e r m

i n a t i o n

,

s u p p o r t e d b y c l e a r a n d c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e

, i n c l u d i n g

t e s t i m o n y o f q u a l i f

i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s e s

, t h a t t

h e c o n t i n u e d

c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d b y t h e p a r e n t o r I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n i s l i k e l y

t o r e s u l t i n s e r i o u s e m o t i o n a l o r p h y s i c a l d a m a g e t o t h e c h i l d

.

M o t h e r a c k

n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e I C W

A “ d o e s n o t e x

p r e s s l y d e f

i n e t h e q u a

l i f i c a t i o n s necessary to be considered a qual i f i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s

. ” N o n e t h e l e s s

, s h e a s s e r t s t h a t t h e

I C W A r e q u i r e s “ h e i g h t e n e d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o v

e r t h o s e n o r m a l l y r e q u i r e d o f e x p e r t s testifying under state st atutes.”

[ ¶ 2 0 ] M o t h e r d i r e c t s o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e B I

A G u i d e l i n e s i n t e r

p r e t i n g t h e A c t ’ s7

r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a c o u r t r e c e i v e t e s t i m o n y f

r o m a q u a l i f

i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s

. T h e

G u i d e l i n e s p r o v

i d e a s f o l l o w s :

D

. 4

. Q u a l i f

i e d E x p e r t W i t n e s s e s

( a ) R e m o v

a l o f a n I n d i a n c h i l d f

r o m h i s o r h e r f

a m i l y m u s t b e

b a s e d o n c o m

p e t e n t t e s t i m o n y f

r o m o n e o r m o r e e x

p e r t s

q u a l i f i e d t o s p e a k s p e c i f

i c a l l y t o t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r

c o n t i n u e d c u s t o d y b y t h e p a r e n t s o r I n d i a n c u s t o d i a n s i s

l i k e l y t o r e s u l t i n s e r i o u s p h y s i c a l o r e m o t i o n a l d a m a g e t o t h e

c h i l d

.

( b ) P e r s o n s w i t h t

h e f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e m o s t l i k e l y

t o m e e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f

o r a q u a l i f

i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s f

o r

p u r p o s e s o f I n d i a n c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g s :

( i ) A m e m

b e r o f t h e I

n d i a n c h i l d ’ s t r i b e w

h o i s

r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e t r i b a l c o m

m u n i t y a s k

n o w l e d g e a b l e

i n t r i b a l c u s t o m s a s t h e y p e r t a i n t o f a m i l y o r g a n i z a t i o n

and c hildrearing practices.

( i i ) A l a y e x

p e r t w i t n e s s h a v

i n g s u b s t a n t i a l

e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e d e l i v

e r y o f c h i l d a n d f

a m i l y s e r v i c e s

t o I n d i a n s

, a n d e x t e n s i v e k n o w l e d g e o f p r e v a i l i n g

s o c i a l a n d c

u l t u r a l s t a n d a r

d s a n d c h i l d r e a r i n g p r a c t i c e s

w i t h i n t h e I

n d i a n c h i l d ’ s t r i b e

.

( i i i ) A p r o f

e s s i o n a l p e r s o n h a v

i n g s u b s t a n t i a l

e d u c a t i o n a n d e x

p e r i e n c e i n t h e a r e a o f h i s o r h e r

s p e c i a l t y

.

4 4 F e d

. R e g

. 6 7

, 5 9 3

.

[ ¶ 2 1 ] T he district court determined that Ms. Rubeck was a qualified witness, reasoning

t h a t “There is no evidence whatsoever that L

. N

. P

. h a s b e e n r a i s e d a n y d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n any child of a non

- I

n d i a n f a m i l y

. . . . [ M s

. R

u b e c k ] w a s a d e q u a t e l y q u a l i f i e d t o o f f e r t h e

o p i n i o n s s h e d i d i n t h i s c a s e e v e n t h o u g h s h e h a s n o t w o r k e d e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h I

n d i a n

children.” We agree with the distri ct court. First, we note that neither t h e I C W A

, n o r t h e

relevant BIA Guidelines, require a “ q u a l i f i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s ” t o p o s s e s s e x p e r t i s e i n

tribal customs

. S e c o n d

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e n o t i o n

, e x

p r e s s e d b y o t h e r c o u r t s t h a t h a v e

addressed this issue, that “ s p e c i a l k n o w l e d g e o f I n d i a n l i f e i s n o t n e c e s s a r y w

h e r e a

p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n h a s s u b s t a n t i a l e d u c a t i o n a n d e x

p e r i e n c e a n d t e s t i f

i e s o n m a t t e r s n o t

implicating cultural bias.” Rachelle S. v. Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec.

, 1 9 1 A r i z

. 5 1 8

,8

5 2 0

, 9 5 8 P

. 2 d 4 5 9

, 4 6 1 ( A r i z

. C t

. A p p

. 1 9 9 8 ) ; s e e a l

s o I n I n t e r e s t o f C

. W

. , 2 3 9 N e b

. 8 1 7

, 8 2 5

, 4 7 9 N

. W

. 2 d 1 0 5

, 1 1 2 ( N e b

. 1 9 9 2 ) ( “ D r

. M e l t o n p o s s e s s e s s u b s t a n t i a l e d u c a t i o n a n d

e x p e r i e n c e i n h i s a r e a o f s p e c i a l t y

, a n d h i s l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e I

n d i a n w a y o f l i f

e

in no way compromised or undermined the value of his testimony. T h e a s s i g n m e n t o f

error as to the use of his testimony at trial is therefore without merit.”); K

. E

. v

. S t a t e ( S tate ex rel. S.A.E.)

, 9 1 2 P

. 2 d 1 0 0 2

, 1 0 0 5 ( U t a h C t

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 ) ( “ W e n o t e t h a t

professi onals h a v

i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e d

u c a t i o n a n d e x p e r i e n c e i n c h i l d w e l f

a r e m i g h t w e l l

qualify as expert witnesses under ICWA, even though their experience with Indian s i s limited.”) (citing cases).

[ ¶ 2 2 ] A s n o t e d b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

, t h e r e w a s n o e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t the guardianship

h e a r i n g r e l a t i n g t o N a t i v e A m e r i c a n c u s t o m s o r c h i l d r e a r i n g p r a c t i c e s

, a n d n o e v i d e n c e

i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Mother had raised LNP according to such norms or practices. Tribal

c u s t o m s s i m

p l y h a d n o r e l e v

a n c e t o t h e f

a c t s o f t h i s c a s e

. R a t h e r , the decision in this

c a s e w a s b a s e d p r i m a r i l y o n M o t h e r ’ s i n a b i l i t y t o p r o v i d e a s t a b l e h o m e f o r L N P

, a s w e l l

a s t h e l i k e l i h o o d t

h a t r e t u r n i n g L N P t o M o t h e r w o u l d t r i g g e r f u t u r e e m o t i o n a l h a r m a s a

r e s u l t o f p a s t s e x

u a l a b u s e

. W e f

i n d t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f p a s t a n d p o t e

n t i a l f u t u r e h a r m t o

L N P i n d i c a t e d i n t h i s c a s e t r a n s c e n d s c u l t u r a l n o r m s a n d v

a l u e s

. B e c a u s e t e s t i m o n y

r e l a t i n g t o t r i b a l c u s t o m s w a s n o t r e l e v a n t i n a s s e s s i n g t h e d a n g e r t o L N P i n r e m a i n i n g

w i t h M o t h e r

, t h e r e w a s n o n e e d f o r t h e e x p e r t t o h a v

e k n o w l e d g e o f s u c h c u s t o m s

. A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e f i n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t d i d n o t a

b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t

M s

. R u b e c k w a s a q u a l i f

i e d e x p e r t w i t n e s s

.

I I I

. L i k e l i h o o d o f S e r i o u s E m o t i o n a l o r P h y s i c a l D a m a g e t o L N P

[ ¶ 2 3 ] I n i t s o r d e r a p p o i n t i n g G r a n d p a r e n t s as permanent guardians, the court

d e t e r m i n e d

, f i r s t

, i n c o m

p l i a n c e w i t h W

y o m i n g l a w

, t h a t M o t

h e r w a s n o t a f

i t p a r e n t

. K O

v. LDH (In re MEO) , 2006 WY 87, ¶ 55, 138 P.3d 1145, 1161 (Wyo. 2006)

. T h e c o u r t

then proceeded to determine that returning LN P to Mother w a s “ l i k e l y t o c a u s e s e r i o u s emotional damage to L

. N

. P

. ” under Section 1912(e) of the ICWA. M o t h e r d o e s n o t

contest the district court’ s finding of parental unfitness. Rather, M o t h e r c l a i m s t h e r e w a s

insufficient evidence to establish that LN P would likely be subject to serious p h y s i c a l o r

emotional harm if she were returned to Mother’s care. W h e n r e v i e w i n g t h e s u f

f i c i e n c y

of the evidence, we examine t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t

h e p r e v a i l i n g party, assume all favorable infere n c e s t o b e t r u e

, a n d d i s r e g a r d c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e presented by the unsuccessful party. ZMETS v. State, 2 0 1 2 W Y 6 8

, ¶ 8

, 2 7 6 P

. 3 d 3 9 2

, 394

- 95 (Wyo. 2012).

[ ¶ 2 4 ] Mother contends that Ms. Rubeck provided “no testimony that LNP’s return to t h e

Appellant’s custod y w o u l d l i k e l y r e s u l t i n a n y s e r i o u s e m o t i o n a l o r p h y s i c a l d a m a g e t o

LNP,” and that Ms. Rubeck w a s n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y i n f

o r m e d t o d e v

e l o p a n o p i n i o n a s t o t

h e

l i k e l i h o o d o f f

u t u r e h a r m t o L

N P

. M o t

h e r a l s o c l a i m s t h a t p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s h a v

e

revealed “no c l e a r p r o o f t h a t a n y s e x u a l o r p h y s i c a l a b u s e o c c u r r e d

, ” a n d s h e n o t e s t h a

t9

s h e n o l o n g

e r h a s a n y c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a l l e g e d a b u s e r

.

[ ¶ 2 5 ] A t t r i a l

, G r a n d

p a r e n t s t e s t i f

i e d w i t h o u t o b

j e c t i o n t h a t L N P had reported that she

had been sexually abused by her “mean da d d y ” w h i l e i n M o t h e r ’ s c a r e

. L N P t o l d

Grandparents that she had been “honeyed” b y h e r “ m e a n d a d d y

, ” c a u s i n g h e r t o b l e e d i n her groin area. When CC confronted Mother about LNP’s reports of abuse, Moth e r expressed concern that she would be blamed for the a b u s e

. I n h e r t e s t i m o n y

, M o t

h e r acknowledged that she suspected LNP’s father o f a b u s i n g L N P a f t e r f i n d i n g b l o o d i n

LNP’s bed. M o t h e r s t a t e d

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t s h e d i d n o t c o n t a c t t h e p o l i c e a b o u

t t h e incident, and that she dropped the matter after receiving assurances from the father’s

family that “he wouldn’t do that.”

[ ¶ 2 6 ] M s

. R

u b e c k t e s t i f

i e d t h a t L N P ’ s b e h a v i o r i n t h e r a p y w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h a t o f a

vic tim of sexual abuse. She noted that L N P w a s “ a v

e r y a n x i o u s l i t t l e c h i l d

, v e r y hypervigilant . . . , ve ry watchful of her surroundings,” and that she was a n g r y a n d

aggressive in day care, hitting and fighting with other children. M s

. R u b e c k f u r t h e r testified that LNP would likely regress if she were r eturned to Mother. M s

. R u b e c k

stated that “We would prob ably see more bed wetti n g

, m o r e h i t t i n g

, m o r e f i g h t i n g

. . . . There would [ probably be ] f l a s h b a c k s a n d s o m e r e c u r r e n t t r i g g e r s t o h e r m e m o r y t h a t

would cause her to act out.” According to Ms. Rube ck, LNP feels safe in Grandparents ’

home and does not want to live with Mother.

[ ¶ 2 7 ] I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g L N P ’ s s e x u a l a b u s e

, t h e c o u r

t a l s o received testimony relating to Mother’s inability to provide a stable home for LNP. CC

testified that Mother had lived with four different men since her rela t i o n s h i p w i t h L N P ’ s

father had dissolved, and t h a t s h e h a d b e e n t h r

o w n o u t o f h e r l i v

i n g q u a r t e r s b y s e v

e r a l o f

these men, leaving her with out a place to stay. M o t h e r a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t

, b e f

o r e a s k i n g Grandparents to take care of LNP, she had placed LNP in t h e c a r e o f a f r i e n d f o r a n extended period “because at the time I was not stable.” When Grandparents t r a v e l l e d t o

O k l a h o m a d u r i n g t h e s u m m e r b e f o r e r e c e i v i n g L N P i n t o t h e i r c a r e

, M o t h e r w a s l i v i n g with her boyfriend in a she d behind her boyfriend’s pare nt s ’ house. T h e s h e d h a d n o running water, and electricity was provided by an extension co rd running to the house.

[ ¶ 2 8 ] D u r i n g c r o s s

- e x a m i n a t i o n

, M o t h e r o f f e r e d c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y in response to

s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t l i n e s o f i n q u i r y

. F o r e x a m p l e :

 I n r e s p o n s e t o q

u e s t i o n i n g r e g

a r d i n g t h e s u s p e c t e d

s e x u a l a b u s e o f L

N P

, M o t h e r i n i t i a l l y s t a t e d t h a t s h e

h a d n e v e r s e e n a n y s i g

n s o f s e x u a l a b u s e a n d t h a

t s h e

h a d n o r e a s o n t o t h i n k t h a t L N P h a d b e e

n h a r m e d

. M o t h e r s u

b s e q u e n t l y a c k n o w l e d g e d

, h o w e v

e r

, t h a t s h e

had f o u n d b l o o d i n L

N P ’ s b e d a n d h a d a c c

u s e d L N P ’ s

father of abuse.10  W h e n a s k e d a b o u t L

N P ’ s u n t r e a t e d s k i n c o n d i t i o n

, Mother initially stated that she had s o u g h t t r e a t m e n t

for LNP’s imp etigo while LNP was in her care, but s h e

later testified that LNP had not b e e n d i a g n o s e d w i t h

impetigo until LNP was out of her cust ody.

 I n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n i n g a b o u t h e r c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y

, M o t h e r i n i t i a l l y d e n i e d t h a t s h e h a d a

n y c r i m i n a l

b a c k g r o u n d

. H o w e v

e r

, s h e s u b s e q u e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t

“ I ’ v e b e e n a r r e s t e d

, o n e f o r f o l l o w i n g t o o c l o s e w i t h

n o l i c e n s e

. A

n d t h e n t h e l a s t o n e w a s w

h e n e v e r I h i t

t h e o l d l a d y i n t

h e m o u t h

. T h a t ’ s t h e o n l y t w o I ’ v e

had.” Mother e x

p l a i n e d t h a t s h e h a d h i t t h e “ o l d

l a d y

, ” w h o m s h e w a s l i v i n g w i t h a t t h e t i m e

, b e c a u s e

she had accused Mo ther’s fri end of molesting LNP.

 W h e n a s k e d w

h e t h e r s h e h a d e v

e r t h r e a t e n e d t o

c o m m i t s u i c i d e

, a n i n q u i r y p r o m p t e d by EC ’ s

testimony, Mother stated that she had not

. M o t h e r subsequently a d m

i t t e d s h e h a d t o l d h e r f

a t h e r t h a t s h e was going to kill herself because she w a s “ s t r e s s e d

out.”

U l t i m a t e l y

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d t h a t M o t h e r w a s n o t a c r e d i b l e w i t n e s s

. W e d e f e r t o

t h a t f i n d i n g

. See DLH

, ¶ 20, 286 P.3d at 753.

[ ¶ 2 9 ] B a s e d o n t h e e v

i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p h e a r i n g , the district court

c o n c l u d e d t

h a t L NP would likely suffer serious emotional or physical damage if she was

r e t u r n e d t o M o t h e r

. I

n i t s o p i n i o n

, t

h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t a t e d :

The Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that

continued custody by [Mother] is likely to cause serious

e m o t i o n a l damage to L.N.P. . . . The record establishes

b e y o n d a l l d o u b t t h a t L

. N

. P

. h a s a l r e a d y s uffered serious

emotional damage as the result of sexual abuse.

[ M s

. R u b e c k ] convincingly testified that to return her to her

m o t h e r

, a t l e a s t a t t

h i s t i m e

, w o u l d r e s ult in what the Court

concludes would also be serious emotional damage. She

predicted that the child would regress, with more bedwetting,

hitting, fighting. She was concerned about flashbacks and

r e c u r r e n t m e m o r y t r i g g e r s w h i c h w o u l d c a u s e h e r t o a c t o u t

. [ M o t h e r ’ s ] h i s t o r i c a l i n a b i l i t y t o p r o v

i d e a s t a b l e l i v

i n g11 e n v i r o n m e n t

, a n d h e r e v

e r

- s h i f t i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s w i t h t h e m e n

o n w h o m s h e d e p e n d s

, c r e a t e a n e a r

- c e r t a i n t y o f f u t u r e s e v e r e

e m o t i o n a l d a m a g e t o a c h i l d w h o h a s a l r e a

d y s u f f e r e d f a r t o o

m u c h

.

T h e C o u r t d o e s n o t p e r c e i v e I C W A t o r e q u i r e a

f i n d i n g t h a t L

. N

. P

. w i l l s u f f e r s u c h s e r i o u s d a m a g e t h a t s h e

m a y b e e m o t i o n a l l y c r i p p l e d f o r l i f e b e f o r e i t i n t e r v

e n e s

. T h e

c o n s e q u e n c e s p r e d i c t e d b y [ M s

. R u b e c k ] a n d t

h o s e

r e a s o n a b l y t o b e i n f

e r r e d f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e a r e s e v e r e e n o u g h

t o a l l o w i n t e r v

e n t i o n

.

V i e w i n g t h e e v

i d e n c e i n t h e l i g

h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o G r a n d p a r e

n t s

, w e f i n d c l e a r a n d

convincing evidence to support the district court’s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r e t u r n i n g L N P t o

Mother’s c are would likely result in serious physical or emotional damage u n d e r S e c t i o n 1912(e) of the ICWA.

[ ¶ 3 0 ] U n d e r t h e s a m e i s s u e h e a d i n g

, M o t h e r d e v o t e s a s i n g

l e paragraph of her brief to a

c l a i m t h a t G r a n d p a r e n

t s failed to show that “ a c t i v e e f f o r t s h a v e b e e n m a d e t o p r o v i d e

remedial servic e s a n d r e h a b i l i t a t i v e p r o g r a m s d e s i g

n e d t o p r e v

e n t t h e b r e a k

u p o f t h e

I ndian family and that these e fforts have proved unsuccessful,” as required under S e c t i o n 1912(d) of the ICWA. M other does not provide any citation to r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t y defining or i n t e r

p r e t i n g t h e “ a c t i v

e e f f o r t s ” r e q u i r e m e n t i n t

h e c o n t e x t o f g

u a r d i a n s h i p

p r o c e e d i n g s o r o t h e r w i s e

, a n d d o e s n o t s u g g e s t a n y r e m e d i a l s e r v i c e s t h a t s h o u l d h a v e

been

, but were not

, offered to her. Rather, Mother simply a s s e r t s t h a t “ n o s u c h e f

f o r t s

h ave been made with or even offered” to her.

[ ¶ 3 1 ] M o t h e r ’ s f

a i l u r e t o p r o v

i d e a p p r o p r i a t e c o n t e x t a n d l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o s u

p p o r t h e r

c l a i m o f e r r o r p r e v e n t s a d e q u a t e r e v i e w b y t h i s C o u r t o n t

h i s i s s u e

. 3 W e w o u l d p o i n t o u t

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s c a s e d i d n o t r e s u l t i n t h e p e r m a n e n

t

b r e a k u p o f t h e I

n d i a n f a m i l y

, a n d G r a n d p a r e n t s d i d m a k e a c t i v e e f f o r t s t o r e u n i f

y M o t h e r

w i t h L N P

. E C t e s t i f

i e d t h a t t h e y h a d r e p e a

t e d l y s e n t M o t h e r m o n e y t o a l l o w h e r t o

p u r c h a s e f

o o d a n d c l o t

h i n g a n d t o b u y g

i f t s f o r L N P

. M o t h e r a c k

n o w l e d g e d t h a t s h e h a d

r e c e i v e d m o n e t a r y s u p p o r t f

r o m Grandparents

, a s w e l l a s c h i l d s u p p o r t f r o m L N P ’ s

father. H o w e v e r

, s h e a d m i t t e d t h a t s h e h a d n o t c o n

t r i b u t e d a n y m o n e y t o s u p p o r t L N P

while in Grandparents ’ care, stating t h a t “ I h a v e n o t g a v e t h e m a n y m o n e y f

o r t h e f a c t i s I

don’t want to do it[.]” Grandparents a l s o e n c o u r a g e d M o t h e r ’ s c o n

t a c t w i t h L

N P t h r o u g

h

3 The guardianship proceedings in this case were initiated by Grandparents, not the State. Mother has

offered no authority interpreting the “active efforts” requirement as it relates to the obligations of private

p arties to provide rehabilitative services.12

p h o n e c o n v

e r s a t i o n s a n d v i d e o c h a t

, b u t M o t h e r ’ s c o m m u n i c a t i o n s e v

e n t u a l l y “ t a p e r e d

o f f

. ” A d d i t i o n a l l y

, C C i n v

i t e d M o t h e r t o l i v

e w i t h L N P i n C h e y e n n e

, a n d s e n t m o n e y s o

t h a t s h e c o u l d v

i s i t

. H o w e v

e r

, M o t h e r v

i s i t e d L N P o n l y o n c e

. B e c a u s e M o t h e r d i d n o t

a c c e p t i n v i t a t i o n s t o l i v

e w i t h G r a n d p a r e n t s o r v i s i t L N P

, s h e w a s u n a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n

L N P ’ s c o u n s e l i n g s e s s i o n s w i t h M s

. R u b e c k

.

[ ¶ 3 2 ] T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a c k n o w l e d g e d that Mother had viable prospects for

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n

, b u t n o t e d that, as of the time of the hearing, she was unable and unwilling

t o e n g a g e i n n e c e s s a r y r e h a b i l i t a t i v e e f f o r t s :

N o t h i n g i n h e r c u r r e n t behavior demonstrates that [Mother]

could not be salvaged as a parent if she would go through the

p r o c e s s f o r f a m i l y r e u n i f

i c a t i o n n o r m a l l y f

o l l o w e d i n a

b u s e

neglect proceedings. The evidence just shows that, at this

t i m e

, [ M o t h e r ] h a s p l a c e d L

. N

. P

. i n a position which led to

horrific abuse, and that she is unwilling to take the steps

necessary to protect her in the future and to help her heal.

She seems unable to appreciate the importance of the most

basic of human needs

– to be safe

– and that she is c u r r e n t l y

i n c a p a b l e o f p r o v

i d i n g i t t o L

. N

. P

. w i t h o u t m a k i n g s o m e changes in her lifestyle.

I m p o r t a n t l y

, h o w e v

e r

, t h e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s c a s e d i d n o t r e s u l t i n t h e p e r m a n e n t

b r e a k u p o f t h e f

a m i l y i n t h e f

o r m o f a termination of Mother’s parental rights. A l t h o u g h

the district court determined that Grandparents ’ g uardianship w o u l d b e “

p e r m a n e n t

, ” t

h e

c o u r t n o t e d t h a

t i t w o u l d t e r m

i n a t e t h e g

u a r d i a n s h i p i n t h e f

u t u r e i f M o t h e r b e c a m e a f i t

parent pursuant to its authority under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 3

- 3

- 1101(a)( v )

, w h i c h p r o v i d e s that a guardianship may be terminated i f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t i t i s n o l o n g

e r

necessary

. I

n consideration of th is authority, t he court stated t h a

t i t w o u l d “ r e v

i e w t h e guardianship appointment in six months if requested to do so by any party

. ” Finally, t h e

court concluded by noting the possibility that Mother could be rehabilitated:

T h e C o u r t u r g

e s [ M o t h e r ] t o w o r k w i t h L

. N

. P

. ’ s t h e r a p i s t s t o

d e v e l o p a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h e r n e e d s a n d t o t h e r e b y a c h i e v e

f i t n e s s a n d r e m o v

e t h e c u r r e n t l y e x i s t i n g r i s k o f s e r i o u s

e m o t i o n a l h a r m

. T h e C o u r t a l s o a d m o n i s h e s t h e P e t i t i o n e r s

t h a t i f t h i s w e r e a c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g

, t h e w o r k i n g

p e r m a n e n c y p l a n w o u l d i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d b e f a m i l y

r e u n i f i c a t i o n o f L

. N

. P

. w i t h h e r n a t u r a l m o t h e r

, a n d t h a

t t h e y

s h o u l d n o t c o n f

u s e t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s w i t h t h o s e n e c e s s a r y t o

t e r m i n a t e p a r e n t a l r i g

h t s

. B o t h W

y o m i n g l a w a n d t h e I C W

A

c o n t e m p l a t e t h a t a g u a r d i a n s h i p u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

s h o u l d c o n

t i n u e o n l y s o l o n g a s n e c e s s a r y t o p r e v e n t f u r t h e r13 h a r m t o L

. N

. P

. , a n d t h a

t t h e g u a r d i a n s h i p m

u s t e n d i f t h e r e i s

n o l o n g e r r i s k o f s e r i o u s e m o t i o n a l h a r m

.

B a s e d u p o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g

, w e d o n o t f

i n d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r

.

[ ¶ 3 3 ] A f f i r m e d

.