### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 2 3 WY 50

A PRIL TERM , A.D. 202 3

May 25, 2023

IN THE INTEREST OF: SRS and LS, minor children,

JS,

Appellant (Respondent),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee (Petitioner).

IN THE INTER EST OF: SRS and LS, minor children,

DS,

Appellant (Respondent),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee (Petitioner). S

- 2 2

- 0 215, S

- 22

- 0216

A

ppeal from th e District Court of Laramie Cou n t y Th e Ho norable Steven K. Sharpe , JudgeRepresenting Appellant JS: Brittany Thorpe , Dom onkos & 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, BOOMGAARD EN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

NOTICE: This opin io n is subjec t to for mal revi sion before pu blication in Paci fi c Reporter T hird. Rea ders are

re quested to notify th e Clerk of the Sup reme C ourt, Supre me C o ur t Building, Cheyenne, Wyomin g 82002, of
any typ ographical or other for mal errors so that corre ction ma y be made b efo re f inal pub lication in th e permanent volum e.1 FOX

, Chief Justice

.

[¶1] In t hese consolidated appeals

, Father and Mother challenge the juvenile court ’s decision to change the permanency plan for their children SRS and LS from family

reunificat io n to adopti on. In Appea l No. S

- 2 2

- 0216 , Father argues th ere was insufficient evidence to support the permanency plan change to adoption

, and that it was not in the

be st interest of SRS and LS du e to thei r individual h igh needs

. In Appeal No. S

- 22

- 0215,

Mother asserts the re was i n s u f f

i c i e n t evidence to change the permanency plan based on contradicted hearsay statements

. We affirm

.

ISSUE

[¶2] Both pare nts ’ issu es on appeal can be distilled to:

1. Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion when it changed t he per manen cy pla n to a dop ti o n ?

FACTS

[¶3] The State filed a Petition Alleg ing Neglect against Father and Mother on October 30, 20 20

. The Aff idavit for Probable Cause, submitted with the Peti tion

, alleged that the Cheyenne Police Department respo nded to calls at Father and M o ther ’s home on October

28 and October 29

. The first call was for a welfare check after a schoo l bus driver dropped o f f SRS at the home, bu t she was unable to e n ter because it was locked, and no

one would answer the door. Officers arrived at t he home and lo oked throug h an open window to see Father and Mother asleep inside. It took officers several minutes of yelli ng through the o pen w i ndow to wake them. Once they enter ed the house , of ficers discovered a foul odor, b ugs, and trash strewn t hroughout the house, and observe d that exterior doors were padlock ed from the inside, locking LS and his maternal grandmoth er inside the

ho use w i th no exit. 1

[¶4] Th e second call came from Mother at 4:15 a.m. the follo wi ng morning to report

SR S as missing

. The responding officer learned tha t 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 a rrived

, even though the temperatur e that night was around thirty degrees. B ecause of Mother’s ongoing failure to tend to the needs of her children , t he

officer deter mined that SR S a nd LS should be taken into protective custody

. T he ju venile

court de cided it was c ontrary to the childr en ’s welfare to remain in the home and granted

the State legal cus tody of the children with a permanency pl an of family reunificatio n.

1 Gr andmother had recently suffered a stro ke that left her immobile and unab le to assist SRS or the

officers

.2 [¶5] A Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) w as formed and filed its first report in

December 2020

. SRS and LS wer e originally put in non

- relative foster care, but SRS was

moved to a facility to better addr ess her m ent al health nee ds and to und erg o

p sy c hological evaluations

. SRS was thi rteen years old at the time

, with significant mental

h ealth needs

, and a histo ry of running away from home and fals ely reporting crimes

. LS

was al most six ye ars old and pr evio u sly diag nos ed with a uti sm

. 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 r eg ain cus tody of their ch il d ren. The objectives includ ed family and indi vidual therapy ; a psych ological evaluation for Mother ; securing and

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

c ould pr ov i de for thei r c hildren’s phy sic al

, me dical, and e motional needs ; and proper ly supervis ing the ir children at all time s

. While the children were in DFS custody, Father

and Mother were allowed superv ised , in

- person visits with LS and supervis ed video or ph one call visits wit h S RS

. Father and Mot her were inf ormed that , i f SRS and LS

remained i n DFS custody for fifteen of t he most recent t we nty

- t wo months, DFS could file a petition to terminate parental rights.

[¶7] DFS file d a quarterly progress review rep or t in January 2021. The report stated LS

show ed substanti al improvement in foster care ; the highly st ru ctured env ironment was beneficial , he was potty trained, he expanded his vocabulary

, and was a b l e to follow a schedule a nd d ire ct i ves. SRS, however, struggled in her placement. She ran away on

mu lti ple occasions, made false a ccusations against staf f members, and struggled with her

mental health. Eventually, she was moved to th e Juvenile Det ention Cente r du e t o h er higher needs and safety concerns

.

[¶8] Father and Mother made some progress on the case pl an. They removed the padlocks on the doors and replaced them with door alarms. They both began therap y but

missed s everal sess ions, wh ic h hindered their progress. Father was more willing to engage in therapy th an Mother

. Mother beli ev e d therapy w as un neces sary and that showing up but not participating was enough to satisfy her case plan. Du ring visits with LS, Fa ther was e n gaged with LS and often play ed on the floor with him. Mother did not
do t his but rather showed LS video s on her phone or bought him gift s. Extra supervision was required for visitation with SRS as Mother enga ge d in inappro priate conv ersat ion s

w ith her which ma y have contributed to SRS’ escalated beh aviors. Mother co mpleted her psychological eval ua tion which advised sh e engage in in tensive dialectical behavior therapy treatment, social skills group, fam il y therapy, par enting co urses, and c o nsistent drug testing. The progress repor t recommended the perma nency goal remain family

reuni fi cation

.3 [¶9] A second MDT R eport was filed in March 2 021

. It noted that both SRS and LS

were doing we ll and impro ving. Fa t her and Mother , however, had recently been evicted

from their home , althou gh through no fault of their s

. Mother had been dropped by her therapist because of too many missed appointments, but Fath er was g iven the option to

co nt inue. F at h er and Mother were frequently late to supervised visits with LS and the y continued to show troubling pa tterns of neglect and l acked follow

- through on case plans.

The MDT recommended legal and physical custod y remain with the Sta te

. Th e q ua r terly progress report filed in April ech oe d the MDT R eport.

[¶10] The juvenile court hel d a six

- month review hear ing in April 2021 and considered

the MDT and DF S case reports. The court found no pro gress had be en made i n allevi ating th e c au s es that requir ed the children to be placed in State custody . It foun d that returning the children ho me at that time would b e contrary to the welfare and best

interest of t he children. The permanency p lan remai ned family r eunification.

[¶11] A sec ond case plan was created in June 20 2 1 with additional goal s. The plan listed

M ot her’s goals as: continu e to work on stabilizing her mental health and her familial relationships; attend all therapy s essions and be o pen and honest i n t ho s e sessions; take

al l medica tion prescribed; maintain one therapy p rovider for a six

- month period ; arrive at

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

for SRS and LS ’ phys ical, menta l, an d emotional need s

. Father was given simil ar goals

an d an additional goal of continuing to develop family in tervention and self

- adv ocating techniques.

[¶12] The quarterly prog ress report filed in July 2021 stated Fat her and Mother h ad made some pro gre ss towards their goals but had several setback s

. Fa ther and Mother

attended therapy but missed several app ointments with their new provider and Mother

was even tually discharged as a client because of her absence s. Mother comp let ed a psychological evaluation while still in t herapy but did not comp lete a req uired

Ps ychological Assessmen t of Parental Capacity

. DFS was providing transportation to

fac ilitate visits through a DFS a ide ; howeve r, Mother began con tacting the a ide in t h e

m iddle of the night and on her personal cellphone. Therefore, the aide refu sed to work

w ith the family

. Father and Mother were evicted tw ice, once for failure to pay rent. They

info r me d DFS they ob tai ne d emp loyment but were unable or unwilling to submit proof of employment. T he permanency goal remained family reunif ication.

[¶13] The September qu ar terly progress report d esc ribed signs of regression b y Father

and Mother

. Mother conti nue d t o miss or be late to “theraplay” sessions with LS and did

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

failed to co mplete he r P sychol ogical A ssessment of P aren tal C apacity and misled DFS

a bo ut completing a suf fi c ient assessment. Father and Mother were unable to provide housing informat ion after their most recent eviction. Mother had been calling the

C a thedr al Home, where SRS ha d been transferred afte r co mp leting her time at Wyom in g4 Girl’s School (WG S)

, alleging the Cathedral Home was torturing SRS , threatening her safety, and that Mother had video proof of it. Mother als o called the police to conduct a

welfare check on SRS at Ca thedral Home

. Father and Mother misse d or were excess iv ely

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

bec ause of Mother’s insistence they stay ou t an extra hour. Father and Mother al so ha d

immense difficu lty f oll ow ing scheduling and transpo rtation guidelin es fo r visits with LS, often failing to show or to pick up LS despite consistent comm unication by D FS. Father

and Mother a llegedly se cured a n RV to l ive in, but they did not prov ide DFS wi th an y information confirmin g it. The r e port continued to recommend family reunification but recommended a concurrent p lan of adoption

.

[¶14] DFS aga in updated the case p lan in January 202 2

, wi th the permanency plan

rema in ing family reunification with a concurrent plan of adoptio n. The plan outlined

similar goals as th e previous plan , including individual and family therapy, pro vid ing

appropr iate care and support t o LS and SRS , an d continuing t o imp rove Father and

Mot her ’ s mental heal t h

. It added requirement s that Mother en gag e i n drug testing and

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

and Mother three months to complete 80% of the ca se plan, and if they fail e d to do so

, warned that DFS ma y reque st a change of p erm an e ncy plan to ado ption.

[¶15] An o the r MDT Report was filed in March 2022

. It stated Fath er failed t o pass his

driver’s lic ense test

, was freq uently lat e to therapy appointm ents, and had regressed in imple menting t he skil ls learned in th era py to voice his own opinions and help M other

control her emotions

. Mother’s family therapy sess ions at C athedral Home were disc ontinued in February because s he became argumentativ e and disr uptive with SRS

. Mother missed n umerous d rug tes ts bu t tested negative o n all tests she c o mpleted. Father

and Mother miss ed several visits with LS

, leading t o visits being canceled

. Law

enforcement was ca ll ed to Father and Mo ther ’s RV where they found chemicals in th e toilet, jars o f f ec e s 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 report ed i f

LS and SRS had be en pres en t, they would have been taken into pro tective custody. The

o ngoi ng concerns of mental hea lth, consistency, scheduling, communicatin g, household

in stability, and overal l safety led DFS to rec ommend the permanency plan b e ch anged to adoption. The quarterly report ref lected these concerns. The MDT R eport recomme nded

a per manency plan change to ad opti on.

[¶16] The juvenile court held an evidentiary perma nen cy hearing on April 22, 2022

. T he court heard testimony from the DFS pr imary case worke r, a c linical psychologist who

evaluated M other, a DFS social services supervisor

, Fath er, and Mother. T h e casew orker

tes tif ie d that Father and Mother were missing me dication appointments which created

si gnificant mental health concerns. She testi fied t hat Mother and SRS’ rela ti on ship was strained , ther e was an unhealthy parenting dynami c, a nd that SRS sai d s he lack ed a connection with Mother. The case worker described Father’s progress as “hit or miss”5 and th ere was no documentation to sup po rt any p rogress Mother c laimed to have made

. The caseworker disting uish ed between F ath er and Mothe r , t estifyi ng that if Father w ere the only parent in the home, famil y reunification may be a ccomplishable. B ut Father and

Mother had no p lans to separate and DFS could not feasibly make separate permanency pla n recommendation s

. I f the children wer e r euni fied with one parent, they wo uld undoubtedly be reunif ied with both

. 2 Based on the t o tality of the circumstances t he case worker was un able to estimate how long it would take to achieve family r eunification and

sh e r ecommended the p ermanency plan chang e to adoption

.

[¶17] A psychologist w ho conducted an ev aluation of Father and Mother testifi e d that family r eu nification would be an “ uphill battle, ” but not an impossibility. Mother would require extensive time, instruction, and practice to learn pro per paren ting skills to meet
her chil dren’ s needs. Fat her was motivated and capable of improving t o the point tha t
would allow fo r f am i ly reunificatio n

. However, Mother engage d in so mewhat delusional thinking and show ed signs of paranoia which Father was un able or unwi ll in g to counter

. Mother also asserted to the psychologist tha t there were no iss ue s with her parenting or lifestyle, and she did not need hel p ; ra ther the issue was with DFS and its misreprese nt at ions of the situati on

.

[¶18] A social services supervisor t esti fie d to her experience with t he fami ly th roughout

the cas e p la n and a separate procee ding with SRS

. She t e stif ied that working w ith Mother

was difficult and i nc o nsistent. The supervisor was informed on the day of the heari ng that another therapy provid er h ad d ropped Mother du e t o m iss ed appointments. She further

te s tified Mothe r had been d ropped by numerous visitatio n, the rapeutic, and medical

p roviders because of missed appointments. Mother’ s relationship with SRS w as strained

a nd tumultuous. Mother ca lled Cathedral Home and made th r e ats and oth er inappro priate

comments which led to M ot her being barred from the p remises

. SRS did not want to do family counseling with Mother but had a gr eat relations hip with Father and w o uld happily do family counseling w ith just him. T h e su pervisor did not believ e it was in SRS’

best interest to return home.

[¶19] Father and Mother both t estified and ex pressed their love for and desire to h ave their childr en ba c k in their custo dy. Fath er tes tified he was unsure if he was read y fo r LS

to come back home becaus e of the work the RV needed

. He also testified SRS had

p reviously told him s h e did not want to return home b ec ause of Mother. Mother testified that they were moving the RV to a place with utilities

, and sh e was also g oing to look at

several house s. She also reported to DF S th at they had secu red a n apartment but did not provide DF S an y documentatio n t o confirm this

.

2 DF S nev er suggested or took the position that Father an d Mo ther should o r we re required to separate to

re gain custody of their children.6 [¶20] U pon hearing testimony and reviewing case plans and reports, the court found

DFS made reason able effor ts to reunify the family and becau se Fat her and Mother m ade

l i ttle to no progres s , it was in th e best interests o f t he children to change the permanency plan to adoption. Father and Mother had a long history of issues with ample tim e to
resolve t hem, but t hey c ons is t ently failed to do s o and had n ot shown this instan ce to be any different. The court determined that despite i mmense help from DFS, Father and

Moth er failed to provide a sa fe living env ironment f or the ch il d ren ; both parents fa iled to

pur sue emp loyment ; they fa iled to consi stently attend or engage in counseling ; and although F ather had im p roved

, his relationship w ith Mother would unavoidably cause bo th children to be reunifi ed with Mothe r, which w as adv ers e t o LS and SRS’ best

i nterests

. The c our t highlighted the substantial strides LS and SRS made in their respective envir onments

. LS was using the bathroom , drinking from a g lass, and had

become much m ore verbal during his p lace men t w ith his foster famil y

. SRS made immense progr ess i n he r mental a nd emotional health during he r time at WGS and

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

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶21] “ We r evi ew a juvenile court’s c ha nge in perm an ency plan for abuse o f discretion.”

Interest of SMD , 20 22 WY 24, ¶ 27, 503 P.3d 644, 652 (Wyo. 2022 ) ( citing Interest of

G C , 2015 WY 73, ¶ 18, 351 P. 3 d 236, 242 (Wyo. 2015)). A court abus es its discr etion if

“ i t act s i n a manner which excee ds the bounds of rea son under the cir cumstances.” Id. (quotin g Int er est of AM , 2 021 WY 119, ¶ 9, 497 P.3d 914, 918 (Wy o. 2021))

. When sufficiency of the evidence is c hallenged, we view the evidence in the li ght most

favorable to t h e p re v ailing party, giving ev er y reasonable i nference to the p revailing party below

, a ssuming al l evidenc e favorable to the p revailing party is true , and discounting any conflicting evidence brought by the unsuccessful party

. Id. (q uoting

I

nt erest of AM , 2 021 W Y 119, ¶ 9 , 497 P.3d at 918)

.

DISCUSSIO N

[¶22] Father and Mot her bring distinct issue s and thei r arguments will be analyzed separately. “To chang e a permanency plan , the juvenile court must determine whether the current plan is in the chil d’s best interes ts an d whether DFS has made reaso na ble effort s to finalize the plan.” Interest of AM

, 2021 WY 11 9, ¶ 11, 497 P.3d at 918 (quo ting Interest of SW , 2021 WY 81, ¶ 17, 491 P.3d 264, 269 (Wyo. 20 2 1)). Throughout the plan

, “the child’s health a nd safety shall be th e p aramou nt concern.” W yo. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 3

- 440(b) ( 2021 ). To change the permanenc y plan, “ t he State must prove by a

prep onderance of the evidence that the current plan is not in the chi l d’s best interests and

that D FS has made reasonable, b ut unsuccessful, ef fo r ts to finalize the p lan.” 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, “ i t may order a change in the7 perman ency plan. ” I d. at ¶ 17, 518 P.3 d a t 703 ( quoting Inter es t of AM , 2021 WY 11 9, ¶ 11, 497 P. 3d at 918).

I. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when changing th e permanency plan to adoption

.

A. Father

[¶23] F ather’s ch allenge to the permanency plan change contains two arguments:

w het he r there was sufficient eviden ce to change the permanency plan change to adoption

an d whether that change was in the best i nterests of the child ren

. B oth are reviewed for

abuse of d isc re tio n. Interest of SMD , 2022 WY 24, ¶ 27, 503 P.3 d at 652 ( cit ing I nte re s t of G C , 201 5 WY 73, ¶ 18, 351 P.3d at 24 2).

[¶24] Father argue s that he made substant ial progre ss in his case plan , he simpl y needed more time to complete it, and the permanency pla n shou ld not have been changed

. Father

argue s h e h as a great r elationship with LS an d SRS, engage d and behave d appropriately

with LS dur ing visits, and made pro gress in t herapy. Father also had unsup ervised visits

wi th LS and improved in a ddressing situations where Mot h e r acted inappropr iat el y

.

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

Parents are not afforde d an indefinite period to achieve their case plan goals , howeve r

. See Interest of G C

, 2015 WY 73, ¶ 38, 351 P.3d at 2 4 6 ; Wyo. Stat. Ann . § 1 4

- 2

- 309(a)(v) (2021). Even when pro gress has been made during some point of a case plan , a juvenile

court does not a buse its discret ion in a c ase such as this when suffici ent prog ress i s not
made within a reasonable time. Matter of J P

L

, 2021 WY 94, ¶ 63, 4 9 3 P.3d 174, 186 (Wyo. 2021). LS an d SRS were first taken into custody in October 20 20 and the juvenile

court changed the permanency plan to a doption in April 2022

. The St at e had legal custody of the children for eighteen cons e c utive m on ths and many o f F at h er’s c ase objectives were not comp leted during that time

. In the last MDT R eport

, as the potential

of the permanency plan changing to adoptio n became closer to reality, F at her began to

regress

. H e did not obtain his driver’ s license ; mi ssed several vi si t s with LS ; and failed to

secure ad equate housing for his children, instead he liv ed in a n RV with no heat, plumbing, or runni ng water.

[¶26] As the juvenile court noted, be in g poor is not a disqualification to parenthood; however, Father fail e d to m ake adequate str ide s , as outli ned in his case plan, to
d emonstrate he could provide for his children’s f inancial needs. See id. at ¶¶ 51

- 52, 61,

493 P.3d at 184, 1 86 (requiring pa rents to attempt to provide financia l stability for their children)

. F ather even tua ll y found p art

- time work but consiste ntly failed to meet plan goals requiring him to search for full

- time work

, to work with Wyomi ng Workforce

Services to fi nd work, and to send out five job appli ca tions per week

. By the March 2 38 MDT R eport, D FS had only received confirmatio n of one job applicatio n

. Fathe r failed to

pursue full

- time work even with DF S’ b est efforts to a ssi st

, which d ir ectly affected his

abilit y to provide a s afe and stable home for his children.

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

on the surface

, he missed several t her ap y sessions and medica tion appointments, and

missed o r arrived late to family vi sitation session s, affecting his overall progress. Father

also m issed three months of domestic v iolence victim advocate sessions from June to Septemb er 20 2 1, and ag ain failed to attend these sessions be ginning in February 2022.

[¶28] In Interest of SMD , both p arents m ade some progress early in the case plan

, then

re gress ed until , after two year s, little p rogress ha d been made. 202 2 W Y 2 4, ¶ 35, 503

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

ask ed for more time to comply w ith thei r case p lan. Id. The ju venile court determined

t hat b ec ause l ittle progress w as made ove r the cour se of the plan, the p e rman ency plan should be changed to adoption , and we affirmed. Id. at 654, 658.

[¶29] Here, Father had amp le time to make progress on his case plan y e t su bstantial progress stil l needed to be made after eigh te en mon ths of assistance. Father r egressed a s the case plan pro lo n ged even though he was aware the permanency plan could change to adoption . The record su pports the finding that Fath er made little p rogress , and the juvenile court did not abuse its di scretion by decli ning t o give Father more time

.

[¶30] Ad dition ally, Fath er’ s a rgument that the juveni le court abused its discretion because adoption was not in the best interest of his high

- need s children fa i ls. Fathe r

argues it was in SRS and LS’ b est interest to continue the perm anency plan of family

reunific ation for an uns pec if i ed period of time becau se he was making progress in his case plan and parental custody was a better solution for his children th a n adoption

. The juvenile cour t, h owever, disagreed , fin ding that both children made substantial prog ress while in DFS cus tod y. LS was no lo ng er wearing a diaper or drinking from a bottle, he was receiving help for his autism disorde r, and he h ad bec o me mu c h more verbal. S RS

made substantial stride s in her mental and emotiona l health and made exce llent grades at

Cat he d ral Home

, al l of which were commended by the juvenile court

. Contin uing to

leave the children in a state of uncertainty whi le Fat her and Mothe r attempted to make

progre ss on their case plan s w ou l d negatively affe ct their progress:

[C] hildren have a right to stability and permanency in their family relationships . Section 14

- 2

- 309(a) recognizes there

m us t be limits on the amoun t of t ime [the Depa r tment] will

attempt to re habil itate a parent w h il e t he children r emai n in foster care. The time limits recognize that the children’s right to stability and p ermanency is superior t o the parent’s right to

famili al association.9 Matter of JPL

, 202 1 WY 94, ¶ 62, 493 P.3d at 186 (quot ing I n re A.D.

, 2007 WY 23

, ¶ 31, 151 P. 3d 1 102, 1109

- 10 (Wyo. 2007))

. “When the rights of a parent and the rights

of a child are on a collision course, th e rights of the parent must yi el d.” Id. (quoting SD v.

C

arbon Cnt y. Dep ’ t o f Fam. Servs. , 2002 WY 168

, ¶ 2 7

, 57 P. 3d 1235

, 1 2 41 (Wyo.

200 2 ))

.

[¶31] LS benefi ted from a highly structured environment with clear and consiste nt discipline, a defined schedule, and direction. He made immense stride s with his foster

f

amily and F at her could n o t provide t he sam e structured env iro nm e nt

. LS’ improvement

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

LS’ best interest.

[¶32] Similarly, S RS r eturning ho me would create a high risk of r egression due to
Mother’s e m otional instabi lity and Father’s lack of progress in responding p rope rly to

Mother’s emo tions , regardless of Father ’ s positive relationship with SRS

. Such an environment had n eg ative effects on SR S a nd led to man y of her disc iplinary issues. The

record su p ports the findi ng that it w as in SRS’ best interest not to return to an emotionally un stable environment

.

[¶33] Father failed to pr ovide a safe place for his children to live, direc tly endangering

the ir health an d safety , which is of paramoun t im portance in p e rmanency plan proceedings . Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14

- 3

- 440(b)

. Cheyenne Po lice were called to Father’s RV

and found unsafe livi ng conditio ns to the degree that SRS and LS would have been taken

int o p rotect ive custody. Father failed to off er a ny proof he a c quired a safe r home for his

children or that he took any steps to re medy t he hazardous living space. The re cord thus

supports t he finding that r eturning SRS and LS to such a liv ing environment wou ld not be

in their best interest.

[¶34] T he Sta te p roved by a pr e ponderance of the evidenc e that adoption was in the

children’s be st intere st and therefore, the juvenile court did not abuse it s dis cretion in changing the permanency plan to ad option. Father w as gi v en amp le time to make

progres s on his c ase plan but fail e d to alleviate many of th e major concerns that led to his

children ’ s place ment in protective custody

. Additionally, SRS and LS improved

substantiall y while in DFS’ protective cu stody. The juven ile c o urt ’s decision did not

exceed th e bound s of r eason under the circums tances and therefore it did no t abuse its

discretion in orderin g the p ermanency plan change to adoption

.10 B. Mother

[¶35] Mother argues the juvenile court abus ed its discr etion because t her e w as in s ufficient evidence to change the perm anency plan t o adoption. 3 Mot her’s argument

stems from SRS’ statement to the juvenile co urt that she wanted to ret urn home to h er parents so they coul d be a family despite the diff ic ulties they faced up to t hat p o int

. S RS’ testimony conflicted with DFS ’ te stimony and F a ther’s testimon y that SRS had expresse d

her desire not to do fami ly therap y with Mother and her concern th at being ba ck with

Mother wo ul d cause her to regress and “restart the cycle that she’s already been in for the past few years.” 4

[¶36] V iewi ng all the ev i dence in the light most favo rable to the State, we must
de te rmine wheth er the juvenil e c ou r t could reasonably have found th at it w as in SRS ’

best interest to change th e permanency plan to adoption . The juv enile court gave seriou s consideratio n to SRS’ wis h es b ut determined t hat Father and Mother did not make adequate, if any, pr ogress in t hei r c ase plans

, and returning SRS and LS hom e would not

be in the children’s best interest.

[¶37] Mother con sistently faile d to attend the rapy and counseli ng , a nd when she d i d attend, she stated she did not need counselin g a nd did not pa rtici pate. Sh e was dropped by multiple providers because of missed appointmen ts, inappropriate behavio r, and

aggr ession. Moth er saw no issue w it h her parenting or behav ior and instead blamed D F S for misrepresenting the family’s s itu at i on. She engag ed in delu sional th inking and

believed several agencies were conspiring ag ainst her to take her chi ldren away

. Her

fai lu re to see her con duct could be improved was troubling and conf licted with t he

or i ginal go al of family r eunif ication.

[¶38] DFS provided evidence that Mother wa s not tak ing her medication which hindered

he r mental hea lth progress. S he f ailed to secure a dequate and safe housing for her

child ren, she made little to no p rog r e s s in improvin g h e r ment al and emotional health, and she often acted inappropriately wit h SR S specifically, and d id not adeq uately engag e with LS during “ theraplay ” ses si ons

.

[¶39] Mother e ngaged in family therapy with SRS at C athedral Home but quickly

be cam e a rgumentative an d disrup tive with SRS and accused SRS’ therapist of brainwashing her. When M other was given an op portunity to visit with SRS while SRS

was at Cathed ral Home , Mother persuaded SRS and Father to return late

, c on trary to

3 Mother’ s brief state d the issue was whether the juven ile court abused its discretion by relying on

contradi cted hearsay testimony in its d ecision to change the permanency pl an. A t oral arg u ment, Mother abandoned this argument , instead arguing the issue above.

4 T he juven ile court recognized SRS’ testimon y co nflicted with DFS’ testimony and made a credib ili ty
de termination when concluding it was in SRS’ best interest t o change th e p ermanency plan to adoption

.11 instr uct io n s. Cathedr a l Home termi nated family therapy with Mother because of these

issues and eventually barred h er fro m the prope rty for maki ng threats and other inappropr ia te cont act with Cath edral Home

.

[¶40] The evidence showed Mother was al so u nable to m eet LS ’ physical and em otional

needs

. Mo t her’s inability to regulate her own emotions had an impact on L S and often caused significant escalations

. Mo ther struggled with scheduling and promp tness with

v isits wit h LS

. Mother was late picking up an d dropp in g off LS

, which disr upt ed his routine, an d she consistently missed or failed to confirm visits. Mother attempted to

intrude on Father’s supervised visitation with LS a nd was warned this b ehavi or w as in ap p ro p riate an d unacceptable

. Eventual ly , thes e supervised visits were term inated due

to Mother’ s behavior and lack of progress.

[¶41] Like Fathe r, Mother failed to secure ade quate housi ng for her children. Her current housing was unsuita ble, and she f ai l ed to provi de evidence of any other housi ng

arrange ments. Mother testified tha t she occasionally work e d for a business partner but did not have a p ermanent job and did not atte mpt to find employment , which adversely imp acted their hous ing stability

.

[¶42] T here was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to determine it wa s not in SR S

or LS’ best interest t o return home to Mother

. Mot her made little, if any, progres s ov er the eig hteen month s SRS and LS were in DF S cu sto dy . Despite SR S’ comment to the juvenile court that she wanted to return home, there was s ufficient eviden ce that Mot her was unable to provi d e a safe environment for her children and it was therefore i n th e children ’s best int erest to change the per mane ncy p lan to ad opt io n

. The juvenile court did

not ab use its discretion.

CON CLUSION

[¶43] The juven ile court did not abuse its discretion in chan ging the permanency plan

from f ami ly reunification to ado ption. Affirmed.