IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2017 WY 64

APRIL TERM, A.D. 2017

June 1, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF: BFW, A 

Minor Child,

DW and KW,

Appellants

(Respondents),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Petitioner).

S-16-0224

Appeal from the District Court of Park County

The Honorable Steven R. Cranfill, Judge 

Representing Appellants:

William K. Struemke, Serviam Legal Services, LLC, Cody, Wyoming

Representing Appellee:

Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; Misha Westby, Deputy Attorney 

General; Jill E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General; David S. Robinson, 

Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Robinson.

Guardian ad Litem:

Office of the State Public Defender: Dan S. Wilde, Deputy State Public Defender; 

Aaron S. Hockman, Chief Trial and Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Guardian ad 

Litem Program

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, and KAUTZ, JJ, and BROOKS, D.J.
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

DAVIS, Justice.

[¶1] Appellants DW and KW challenge an adjudication which determined that they 

neglected their minor child. However, they have not adhered to the Wyoming Rules of 

Appellate Procedure because they have failed to present cogent argument or pertinent 

authority to support their claims of error as to issues they raise. Accordingly, we 

summarily affirm. 

ISSUES

[¶2] Appellants present several issues attempting to assert errors claimed to have been 

committed by the juvenile court. However, the issues are unintelligible at best, as they 

are uncoupled to any cogent argument or pertinent authority. 

FACTS

[¶3] The county attorney filed a juvenile petition alleging Appellant’s minor child had 

been neglected as defined under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(xii)(A) and (B). The 

proceeding eventually made its way to trial, and a jury found that Appellants had indeed 

neglected their child.1 Based upon these findings, the juvenile court adjudged 

Appellants’ child to be neglected under the Child Protection Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-

401 et seq.

[¶4] Appellants timely perfected their appeal, and the case was subsequently docketed 

with this Court. The day that the case was docketed, the clerk of this Court provided 

notice to Appellants and other parties as to the briefing schedule. The schedule clearly 

advised that Appellants had 45 days after service of the notice to file their brief. 

Unfortunately, Appellants failed to timely file their brief, and this Court entered an order 

dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to W.R.A.P. 7.11. Appellants 

then filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to W.R.A.P. 15, which this Court 

subsequently granted after finding excusable neglect. 

DISCUSSION

[¶5] The longstanding rule of this Court is to summarily affirm “cases or issues in cases 

that are not presented with cogent argument or pertinent authority.” Hamburg v. 

Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 87 (Wyo. 1995); see also Small v. Convenience Plus Partners, 

Ltd., 6 P.3d 1254, 1256 (Wyo. 2000) (summarily affirming for lack of cogent argument); 

State ex rel. Reece v. Wyoming State Bd. of Outfitters & Prof’l Guides, 931 P.2d 958, 959 

(Wyo. 1997) (“Appellant’s brief fails to comply with rules of appellate procedure and is 

void of cogent argument or legal authority, thus depriving him of his requested relief.”). 

 

1 The jury, however, found the allegations of abuse against both parents to be untrue. 
2

[¶6] We have carefully reviewed Appellants’ brief, and uncovered no cogent argument 

supported by legal authority. Consequently, we must summarily affirm the Order on 

Adjudicated Hearing entered by the district court. 

[¶7] Affirmed.