IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2023 WY 50

 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2023

May 25, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF: SRS and LS, 

minor children, 

JS, 

Appellant

(Respondent),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Petitioner).

IN THE INTEREST OF: SRS and LS,

minor children,

DS,

Appellant

(Respondent),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Petitioner).

S-22-0215, S-22-0216

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County

The Honorable Steven K. Sharpe, Judge
Representing Appellant JS:

Brittany Thorpe, Domonkos & Thorpe, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Representing Appellant DS:

 Donald E. Miller, Miller Law Firm, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Representing Appellee: 

Bridget Hill, Attorney General; Christina McCabe, Deputy Attorney General; 

Callie Papoulas, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Papoulas. 

Guardian ad Litem: 

Deborah L. Roden, Woodhouse Roden Ames & Brennan, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ. 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are 

requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of 

any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the 

permanent volume.
1

FOX, Chief Justice.

[¶1] In these consolidated appeals, Father and Mother challenge the juvenile court’s

decision to change the permanency plan for their children SRS and LS from family

reunification to adoption. In Appeal No. S-22-0216, Father argues there was insufficient 

evidence to support the permanency plan change to adoption, and that it was not in the 

best interest of SRS and LS due to their individual high needs. In Appeal No. S-22-0215, 

Mother asserts there was insufficient evidence to change the permanency plan based on 

contradicted hearsay statements. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Both parents’ issues on appeal can be distilled to:

1. Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion when it 

changed the permanency plan to adoption?

FACTS

[¶3] The State filed a Petition Alleging Neglect against Father and Mother on October 

30, 2020. The Affidavit for Probable Cause, submitted with the Petition, alleged that the 

Cheyenne Police Department responded to calls at Father and Mother’s home on October 

28 and October 29. The first call was for a welfare check after a school bus driver 

dropped off SRS at the home, but she was unable to enter because it was locked, and no 

one would answer the door. Officers arrived at the home and looked through an open 

window to see Father and Mother asleep inside. It took officers several minutes of yelling 

through the open window to wake them. Once they entered the house, officers discovered 

a foul odor, bugs, and trash strewn throughout the house, and observed that exterior doors 

were padlocked from the inside, locking LS and his maternal grandmother inside the 

house with no exit.1

[¶4] The second call came from Mother at 4:15 a.m. the following morning to report 

SRS as missing. The responding officer learned that Mother allowed SRS to spend the 

night at a friend’s home without coordinating the stay with the other child’s mother or 

confirming SRS had arrived, even though the temperature that night was around thirty

degrees. Because of Mother’s ongoing failure to tend to the needs of her children, the 

officer determined that SRS and LS should be taken into protective custody. The juvenile

court decided it was contrary to the children’s welfare to remain in the home and granted 

the State legal custody of the children with a permanency plan of family reunification. 

1 Grandmother had recently suffered a stroke that left her immobile and unable to assist SRS or the

officers. 
2

[¶5] A Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) was formed and filed its first report in 

December 2020. SRS and LS were originally put in non-relative foster care, but SRS was 

moved to a facility to better address her mental health needs and to undergo

psychological evaluations. SRS was thirteen years old at the time, with significant mental

health needs, and a history of running away from home and falsely reporting crimes. LS 

was almost six years old and previously diagnosed with autism. Before being placed in 

foster care, LS was nonverbal, in diapers, and still drinking from a bottle.

[¶6] DFS developed a case plan in December that outlined several objectives Father

and Mother needed to achieve to regain custody of their children. The objectives included

family and individual therapy; a psychological evaluation for Mother; securing and 

maintaining a clean and safe living environment for the children; demonstrating they 

could provide for their children’s physical, medical, and emotional needs; and properly

supervising their children at all times. While the children were in DFS custody, Father

and Mother were allowed supervised, in-person visits with LS and supervised video or 

phone call visits with SRS. Father and Mother were informed that, if SRS and LS 

remained in DFS custody for fifteen of the most recent twenty-two months, DFS could 

file a petition to terminate parental rights.

[¶7] DFS filed a quarterly progress review report in January 2021. The report stated LS

showed substantial improvement in foster care; the highly structured environment was 

beneficial, he was potty trained, he expanded his vocabulary, and was able to follow a 

schedule and directives. SRS, however, struggled in her placement. She ran away on 

multiple occasions, made false accusations against staff members, and struggled with her 

mental health. Eventually, she was moved to the Juvenile Detention Center due to her 

higher needs and safety concerns. 

[¶8] Father and Mother made some progress on the case plan. They removed the 

padlocks on the doors and replaced them with door alarms. They both began therapy but 

missed several sessions, which hindered their progress. Father was more willing to 

engage in therapy than Mother. Mother believed therapy was unnecessary and that 

showing up but not participating was enough to satisfy her case plan. During visits with 

LS, Father was engaged with LS and often played on the floor with him. Mother did not 

do this but rather showed LS videos on her phone or bought him gifts. Extra supervision 

was required for visitation with SRS as Mother engaged in inappropriate conversations 

with her which may have contributed to SRS’ escalated behaviors. Mother completed her 

psychological evaluation which advised she engage in intensive dialectical behavior 

therapy treatment, social skills group, family therapy, parenting courses, and consistent 

drug testing. The progress report recommended the permanency goal remain family 

reunification. 
3

[¶9] A second MDT Report was filed in March 2021. It noted that both SRS and LS 

were doing well and improving. Father and Mother, however, had recently been evicted 

from their home, although through no fault of theirs. Mother had been dropped by her 

therapist because of too many missed appointments, but Father was given the option to 

continue. Father and Mother were frequently late to supervised visits with LS and they

continued to show troubling patterns of neglect and lacked follow-through on case plans. 

The MDT recommended legal and physical custody remain with the State. The quarterly 

progress report filed in April echoed the MDT Report.

[¶10] The juvenile court held a six-month review hearing in April 2021 and considered

the MDT and DFS case reports. The court found no progress had been made in 

alleviating the causes that required the children to be placed in State custody. It found 

that returning the children home at that time would be contrary to the welfare and best 

interest of the children. The permanency plan remained family reunification. 

[¶11] A second case plan was created in June 2021 with additional goals. The plan listed 

Mother’s goals as: continue to work on stabilizing her mental health and her familial 

relationships; attend all therapy sessions and be open and honest in those sessions; take 

all medication prescribed; maintain one therapy provider for a six-month period; arrive at 

all individual and family therapy sessions on time; and ensure she can adequately provide 

for SRS and LS’ physical, mental, and emotional needs. Father was given similar goals

and an additional goal of continuing to develop family intervention and self-advocating 

techniques. 

[¶12] The quarterly progress report filed in July 2021 stated Father and Mother had 

made some progress towards their goals but had several setbacks. Father and Mother

attended therapy but missed several appointments with their new provider and Mother 

was eventually discharged as a client because of her absences. Mother completed a 

psychological evaluation while still in therapy but did not complete a required 

Psychological Assessment of Parental Capacity. DFS was providing transportation to 

facilitate visits through a DFS aide; however, Mother began contacting the aide in the 

middle of the night and on her personal cellphone. Therefore, the aide refused to work 

with the family. Father and Mother were evicted twice, once for failure to pay rent. They 

informed DFS they obtained employment but were unable or unwilling to submit proof of 

employment. The permanency goal remained family reunification. 

[¶13] The September quarterly progress report described signs of regression by Father

and Mother. Mother continued to miss or be late to “theraplay” sessions with LS and did 

not engage or provide physical or emotional support for LS during sessions. Mother 

failed to complete her Psychological Assessment of Parental Capacity and misled DFS 

about completing a sufficient assessment. Father and Mother were unable to provide 

housing information after their most recent eviction. Mother had been calling the 

Cathedral Home, where SRS had been transferred after completing her time at Wyoming 
4

Girl’s School (WGS), alleging the Cathedral Home was torturing SRS, threatening her 

safety, and that Mother had video proof of it. Mother also called the police to conduct a 

welfare check on SRS at Cathedral Home. Father and Mother missed or were excessively

late to several visits with SRS. They returned late with SRS from the visit they did attend 

because of Mother’s insistence they stay out an extra hour. Father and Mother also had

immense difficulty following scheduling and transportation guidelines for visits with LS, 

often failing to show or to pick up LS despite consistent communication by DFS. Father

and Mother allegedly secured an RV to live in, but they did not provide DFS with any 

information confirming it. The report continued to recommend family reunification but 

recommended a concurrent plan of adoption.

[¶14] DFS again updated the case plan in January 2022, with the permanency plan

remaining family reunification with a concurrent plan of adoption. The plan outlined 

similar goals as the previous plan, including individual and family therapy, providing

appropriate care and support to LS and SRS, and continuing to improve Father and 

Mother’s mental health. It added requirements that Mother engage in drug testing and 

Father obtain a driver’s license and actively seek employment. The plan also gave Father

and Mother three months to complete 80% of the case plan, and if they failed to do so, 

warned that DFS may request a change of permanency plan to adoption.

[¶15] Another MDT Report was filed in March 2022. It stated Father failed to pass his 

driver’s license test, was frequently late to therapy appointments, and had regressed in 

implementing the skills learned in therapy to voice his own opinions and help Mother 

control her emotions. Mother’s family therapy sessions at Cathedral Home were 

discontinued in February because she became argumentative and disruptive with SRS. 

Mother missed numerous drug tests but tested negative on all tests she completed. Father

and Mother missed several visits with LS, leading to visits being canceled. Law 

enforcement was called to Father and Mother’s RV where they found chemicals in the 

toilet, jars of feces and urine throughout the RV, no plumbing, running water, or heat, and 

an open gas flame stove with oxygen tanks in the vicinity. Law enforcement reported if 

LS and SRS had been present, they would have been taken into protective custody. The 

ongoing concerns of mental health, consistency, scheduling, communicating, household

instability, and overall safety led DFS to recommend the permanency plan be changed to 

adoption. The quarterly report reflected these concerns. The MDT Report recommended 

a permanency plan change to adoption.

[¶16] The juvenile court held an evidentiary permanency hearing on April 22, 2022. The

court heard testimony from the DFS primary case worker, a clinical psychologist who 

evaluated Mother, a DFS social services supervisor, Father, and Mother. The caseworker 

testified that Father and Mother were missing medication appointments which created 

significant mental health concerns. She testified that Mother and SRS’ relationship was

strained, there was an unhealthy parenting dynamic, and that SRS said she lacked a 

connection with Mother. The case worker described Father’s progress as “hit or miss” 
5

and there was no documentation to support any progress Mother claimed to have made.

The caseworker distinguished between Father and Mother, testifying that if Father were

the only parent in the home, family reunification may be accomplishable. But Father and 

Mother had no plans to separate and DFS could not feasibly make separate permanency 

plan recommendations. If the children were reunified with one parent, they would 

undoubtedly be reunified with both.

2 Based on the totality of the circumstances the case 

worker was unable to estimate how long it would take to achieve family reunification and

she recommended the permanency plan change to adoption. 

[¶17] A psychologist who conducted an evaluation of Father and Mother testified that 

family reunification would be an “uphill battle,” but not an impossibility. Mother would 

require extensive time, instruction, and practice to learn proper parenting skills to meet 

her children’s needs. Father was motivated and capable of improving to the point that 

would allow for family reunification. However, Mother engaged in somewhat delusional 

thinking and showed signs of paranoia which Father was unable or unwilling to counter. 

Mother also asserted to the psychologist that there were no issues with her parenting or 

lifestyle, and she did not need help; rather the issue was with DFS and its 

misrepresentations of the situation. 

[¶18] A social services supervisor testified to her experience with the family throughout 

the case plan and a separate proceeding with SRS. She testified that working with Mother 

was difficult and inconsistent. The supervisor was informed on the day of the hearing that 

another therapy provider had dropped Mother due to missed appointments. She further 

testified Mother had been dropped by numerous visitation, therapeutic, and medical 

providers because of missed appointments. Mother’s relationship with SRS was strained 

and tumultuous. Mother called Cathedral Home and made threats and other inappropriate 

comments which led to Mother being barred from the premises. SRS did not want to do 

family counseling with Mother but had a great relationship with Father and would 

happily do family counseling with just him. The supervisor did not believe it was in SRS’ 

best interest to return home.

[¶19] Father and Mother both testified and expressed their love for and desire to have 

their children back in their custody. Father testified he was unsure if he was ready for LS 

to come back home because of the work the RV needed. He also testified SRS had 

previously told him she did not want to return home because of Mother. Mother testified 

that they were moving the RV to a place with utilities, and she was also going to look at 

several houses. She also reported to DFS that they had secured an apartment but did not 

provide DFS any documentation to confirm this.

2 DFS never suggested or took the position that Father and Mother should or were required to separate to

regain custody of their children.
6

[¶20] Upon hearing testimony and reviewing case plans and reports, the court found 

DFS made reasonable efforts to reunify the family and because Father and Mother made

little to no progress, it was in the best interests of the children to change the permanency 

plan to adoption. Father and Mother had a long history of issues with ample time to 

resolve them, but they consistently failed to do so and had not shown this instance to be 

any different. The court determined that despite immense help from DFS, Father and 

Mother failed to provide a safe living environment for the children; both parents failed to 

pursue employment; they failed to consistently attend or engage in counseling; and 

although Father had improved, his relationship with Mother would unavoidably cause 

both children to be reunified with Mother, which was adverse to LS and SRS’ best

interests. The court highlighted the substantial strides LS and SRS made in their 

respective environments. LS was using the bathroom, drinking from a glass, and had 

become much more verbal during his placement with his foster family. SRS made 

immense progress in her mental and emotional health during her time at WGS and 

Cathedral Home. The juvenile court relieved DFS of its efforts to reunify the family. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶21] “We review a juvenile court’s change in permanency plan for abuse of discretion.” 

Interest of SMD, 2022 WY 24, ¶ 27, 503 P.3d 644, 652 (Wyo. 2022) (citing Interest of 

GC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 18, 351 P.3d 236, 242 (Wyo. 2015)). A court abuses its discretion if 

“it acts in a manner which exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.” Id.

(quoting Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119, ¶ 9, 497 P.3d 914, 918 (Wyo. 2021)). When 

sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the prevailing party, giving every reasonable inference to the prevailing 

party below, assuming all evidence favorable to the prevailing party is true, and 

discounting any conflicting evidence brought by the unsuccessful party. Id. (quoting 

Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119, ¶ 9, 497 P.3d at 918).

DISCUSSION

[¶22] Father and Mother bring distinct issues and their arguments will be analyzed 

separately. “To change a permanency plan, the juvenile court must determine whether the 

current plan is in the child’s best interests and whether DFS has made reasonable efforts 

to finalize the plan.” Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119, ¶ 11, 497 P.3d at 918 (quoting

Interest of SW, 2021 WY 81, ¶ 17, 491 P.3d 264, 269 (Wyo. 2021)). Throughout the plan, 

“the child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-

440(b) (2021). To change the permanency plan, “the State must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that the current plan is not in the child’s best interests and 

that DFS has made reasonable, but unsuccessful, efforts to finalize the plan.” Interest of 

BP, 2022 WY 128, ¶ 17, 518 P.3d 698, 702 (Wyo. 2022) (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-

431(k)(i)). If the court determines the burden was met, “it may order a change in the 
7

permanency plan.” Id. at ¶ 17, 518 P.3d at 703 (quoting Interest of AM, 2021 WY 119, 

¶ 11, 497 P.3d at 918).

I. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when changing the 

permanency plan to adoption.

A. Father

[¶23] Father’s challenge to the permanency plan change contains two arguments:

whether there was sufficient evidence to change the permanency plan change to adoption 

and whether that change was in the best interests of the children. Both are reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. Interest of SMD, 2022 WY 24, ¶ 27, 503 P.3d at 652 (citing Interest 

of GC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 18, 351 P.3d at 242).

[¶24] Father argues that he made substantial progress in his case plan, he simply needed 

more time to complete it, and the permanency plan should not have been changed. Father 

argues he has a great relationship with LS and SRS, engaged and behaved appropriately 

with LS during visits, and made progress in therapy. Father also had unsupervised visits 

with LS and improved in addressing situations where Mother acted inappropriately. 

[¶25] By many accounts, Father was improving and progressing early in the case plan. 

Parents are not afforded an indefinite period to achieve their case plan goals, however. 

See Interest of GC, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 38, 351 P.3d at 246; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v)

(2021). Even when progress has been made during some point of a case plan, a juvenile 

court does not abuse its discretion in a case such as this when sufficient progress is not 

made within a reasonable time. Matter of JPL, 2021 WY 94, ¶ 63, 493 P.3d 174, 186 

(Wyo. 2021). LS and SRS were first taken into custody in October 2020 and the juvenile

court changed the permanency plan to adoption in April 2022. The State had legal 

custody of the children for eighteen consecutive months and many of Father’s case 

objectives were not completed during that time. In the last MDT Report, as the potential 

of the permanency plan changing to adoption became closer to reality, Father began to

regress. He did not obtain his driver’s license; missed several visits with LS; and failed to 

secure adequate housing for his children, instead he lived in an RV with no heat, 

plumbing, or running water. 

[¶26] As the juvenile court noted, being poor is not a disqualification to parenthood;

however, Father failed to make adequate strides, as outlined in his case plan, to 

demonstrate he could provide for his children’s financial needs. See id. at ¶¶ 51-52, 61, 

493 P.3d at 184, 186 (requiring parents to attempt to provide financial stability for their 

children). Father eventually found part-time work but consistently failed to meet plan 

goals requiring him to search for full-time work, to work with Wyoming Workforce 

Services to find work, and to send out five job applications per week. By the March 23
8

MDT Report, DFS had only received confirmation of one job application. Father failed to

pursue full-time work even with DFS’ best efforts to assist, which directly affected his 

ability to provide a safe and stable home for his children.

[¶27] Father’s mental health progress was “hit or miss.” Although Father made progress 

on the surface, he missed several therapy sessions and medication appointments, and 

missed or arrived late to family visitation sessions, affecting his overall progress. Father 

also missed three months of domestic violence victim advocate sessions from June to 

September 2021, and again failed to attend these sessions beginning in February 2022. 

[¶28] In Interest of SMD, both parents made some progress early in the case plan, then 

regressed until, after two years, little progress had been made. 2022 WY 24, ¶ 35, 503 

P.3d at 654. The parents struggled with mental health, housing, and employment, and 

asked for more time to comply with their case plan. Id. The juvenile court determined 

that because little progress was made over the course of the plan, the permanency plan 

should be changed to adoption, and we affirmed. Id. at 654, 658.

[¶29] Here, Father had ample time to make progress on his case plan yet substantial 

progress still needed to be made after eighteen months of assistance. Father regressed as 

the case plan prolonged even though he was aware the permanency plan could change to 

adoption. The record supports the finding that Father made little progress, and the 

juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give Father more time.

[¶30] Additionally, Father’s argument that the juvenile court abused its discretion 

because adoption was not in the best interest of his high-needs children fails. Father 

argues it was in SRS and LS’ best interest to continue the permanency plan of family 

reunification for an unspecified period of time because he was making progress in his 

case plan and parental custody was a better solution for his children than adoption. The 

juvenile court, however, disagreed, finding that both children made substantial progress 

while in DFS custody. LS was no longer wearing a diaper or drinking from a bottle, he 

was receiving help for his autism disorder, and he had become much more verbal. SRS

made substantial strides in her mental and emotional health and made excellent grades at 

Cathedral Home, all of which were commended by the juvenile court. Continuing to 

leave the children in a state of uncertainty while Father and Mother attempted to make 

progress on their case plans would negatively affect their progress:

[C]hildren have a right to stability and permanency in their 

family relationships. Section 14-2-309(a) recognizes there 

must be limits on the amount of time [the Department] will 

attempt to rehabilitate a parent while the children remain in 

foster care. The time limits recognize that the children’s right 

to stability and permanency is superior to the parent’s right to 

familial association.
9

Matter of JPL, 2021 WY 94, ¶ 62, 493 P.3d at 186 (quoting In re A.D., 2007 WY 23,

¶ 31, 151 P.3d 1102, 1109-10 (Wyo. 2007)). “When the rights of a parent and the rights 

of a child are on a collision course, the rights of the parent must yield.” Id. (quoting SD v. 

Carbon Cnty. Dep’t of Fam. Servs., 2002 WY 168, ¶ 27, 57 P.3d 1235, 1241 (Wyo. 

2002)).

[¶31] LS benefited from a highly structured environment with clear and consistent 

discipline, a defined schedule, and direction. He made immense strides with his foster 

family and Father could not provide the same structured environment. LS’ improvement 

in foster care and Father’s lack of improvement supports the finding that adoption is in 

LS’ best interest.

[¶32] Similarly, SRS returning home would create a high risk of regression due to 

Mother’s emotional instability and Father’s lack of progress in responding properly to

Mother’s emotions, regardless of Father’s positive relationship with SRS. Such an 

environment had negative effects on SRS and led to many of her disciplinary issues. The 

record supports the finding that it was in SRS’ best interest not to return to an

emotionally unstable environment.

[¶33] Father failed to provide a safe place for his children to live, directly endangering 

their health and safety, which is of paramount importance in permanency plan 

proceedings. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-440(b). Cheyenne Police were called to Father’s RV

and found unsafe living conditions to the degree that SRS and LS would have been taken 

into protective custody. Father failed to offer any proof he acquired a safer home for his

children or that he took any steps to remedy the hazardous living space. The record thus 

supports the finding that returning SRS and LS to such a living environment would not be

in their best interest.

[¶34] The State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that adoption was in the 

children’s best interest and therefore, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

changing the permanency plan to adoption. Father was given ample time to make 

progress on his case plan but failed to alleviate many of the major concerns that led to his 

children’s placement in protective custody. Additionally, SRS and LS improved 

substantially while in DFS’ protective custody. The juvenile court’s decision did not 

exceed the bounds of reason under the circumstances and therefore it did not abuse its 

discretion in ordering the permanency plan change to adoption. 
10

B. Mother

[¶35] Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion because there was 

insufficient evidence to change the permanency plan to adoption.3 Mother’s argument 

stems from SRS’ statement to the juvenile court that she wanted to return home to her 

parents so they could be a family despite the difficulties they faced up to that point. SRS’ 

testimony conflicted with DFS’ testimony and Father’s testimony that SRS had expressed 

her desire not to do family therapy with Mother and her concern that being back with 

Mother would cause her to regress and “restart the cycle that she’s already been in for the 

past few years.”4

[¶36] Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we must 

determine whether the juvenile court could reasonably have found that it was in SRS’

best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption. The juvenile court gave serious 

consideration to SRS’ wishes but determined that Father and Mother did not make 

adequate, if any, progress in their case plans, and returning SRS and LS home would not 

be in the children’s best interest. 

[¶37] Mother consistently failed to attend therapy and counseling, and when she did 

attend, she stated she did not need counseling and did not participate. She was dropped 

by multiple providers because of missed appointments, inappropriate behavior, and 

aggression. Mother saw no issue with her parenting or behavior and instead blamed DFS 

for misrepresenting the family’s situation. She engaged in delusional thinking and 

believed several agencies were conspiring against her to take her children away. Her 

failure to see her conduct could be improved was troubling and conflicted with the 

original goal of family reunification. 

[¶38] DFS provided evidence that Mother was not taking her medication which hindered

her mental health progress. She failed to secure adequate and safe housing for her 

children, she made little to no progress in improving her mental and emotional health, 

and she often acted inappropriately with SRS specifically, and did not adequately engage 

with LS during “theraplay” sessions. 

[¶39] Mother engaged in family therapy with SRS at Cathedral Home but quickly 

became argumentative and disruptive with SRS and accused SRS’ therapist of 

brainwashing her. When Mother was given an opportunity to visit with SRS while SRS 

was at Cathedral Home, Mother persuaded SRS and Father to return late, contrary to

3 Mother’s brief stated the issue was whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by relying on 

contradicted hearsay testimony in its decision to change the permanency plan. At oral argument, Mother 

abandoned this argument, instead arguing the issue above.

4 The juvenile court recognized SRS’ testimony conflicted with DFS’ testimony and made a credibility

determination when concluding it was in SRS’ best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption. 
11

instructions. Cathedral Home terminated family therapy with Mother because of these 

issues and eventually barred her from the property for making threats and other 

inappropriate contact with Cathedral Home.

[¶40] The evidence showed Mother was also unable to meet LS’ physical and emotional 

needs. Mother’s inability to regulate her own emotions had an impact on LS and often

caused significant escalations. Mother struggled with scheduling and promptness with 

visits with LS. Mother was late picking up and dropping off LS, which disrupted his 

routine, and she consistently missed or failed to confirm visits. Mother attempted to 

intrude on Father’s supervised visitation with LS and was warned this behavior was 

inappropriate and unacceptable. Eventually, these supervised visits were terminated due 

to Mother’s behavior and lack of progress. 

[¶41] Like Father, Mother failed to secure adequate housing for her children. Her current

housing was unsuitable, and she failed to provide evidence of any other housing

arrangements. Mother testified that she occasionally worked for a business partner but 

did not have a permanent job and did not attempt to find employment, which adversely 

impacted their housing stability. 

[¶42] There was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to determine it was not in SRS 

or LS’ best interest to return home to Mother. Mother made little, if any, progress over

the eighteen months SRS and LS were in DFS custody. Despite SRS’ comment to the 

juvenile court that she wanted to return home, there was sufficient evidence that Mother 

was unable to provide a safe environment for her children and it was therefore in the 

children’s best interest to change the permanency plan to adoption. The juvenile court did 

not abuse its discretion.

CONCLUSION

[¶43] The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan 

from family reunification to adoption. Affirmed.