IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

2016 WY 99

 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2016

October 17, 2016

IN THE INTEREST OF SO, a Minor Child:

PM and JM, 

Appellants

(Respondents),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Petitioner),

and

FH and RH,

Appellees

(Respondents).

S-16-0071

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County

The Honorable John G. Fenn, Judge

Representing Appellants:

Timothy C. Cotton, CottonLegal, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee, State of Wyoming:

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

E. Kucera, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Kucera.
Representing Appellees, FH and RH:

No appearance.

Guardian Ad Litem:

Dan S. Wilde, Deputy Director, Aaron S. Hockman, Permanency Attorney, and 

Christopher W. Goetz, Student Intern, Wyoming Guardian Ad Litem Program.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, 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

BURKE, Chief Justice.

[¶1] Appellants JM and PM are the grandmother and step-grandfather of SO. SO is 

currently in the legal custody of the Wyoming Department of Family Services, and has 

been in the physical care of Foster Parents since three days after her birth on February 4, 

2013. Grandparents filed a motion seeking to transfer placement of SO from Foster 

Parents to Grandparents. The juvenile court denied the motion and Grandparents 

challenge that decision in this appeal. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] The issue in this case is whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it 

denied the “Motion for Placement of Minor Child with Grandparents.”

FACTS

[¶3] At the time of her birth, SO’s Mother was in pretrial custody at the Natrona 

County jail in Casper, Wyoming. Wyoming’s Department of Family Services took the 

child into protective custody. Because Mother’s four older children were already in DFS 

custody in Sheridan, Wyoming, DFS relocated SO to Sheridan, where she was placed in 

Foster Parents’ care on February 7, 2013. On February 21, 2013, Mother was released 

from jail on bond and moved to Sheridan. On March 12, 2013, DFS filed a petition 

alleging that SO was a neglected child and that Mother was unable to provide proper care 

for her. During the initial hearing, Mother admitted the allegations, and the juvenile 

court adjudicated SO as a neglected child. The court ordered that SO would remain in 

the legal custody of DFS and in the physical custody of Foster Parents.

[¶4] In April of 2013, DFS sent a “Notice to Relative” form to Grandparents and other 

relatives of SO, informing them that SO had been removed from Mother’s care and was 

in the custody of the State. The form indicated to Grandparents that, “[a]s a relative, you 

may be considered for short or long term placement of this child, if you agree, and your 

home is considered an appropriate placement option.” Grandparents returned the form to 

DFS as requested, indicating they were “interested in making contact with this child and 

being a positive support in this child’s life.” They did not check the box indicating they 

were “interested in being considered as a possible placement resource for this child.”

[¶5] In the meantime, Mother’s criminal proceedings continued. Ultimately, Mother 

pled guilty to a charge of possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent, and was 

sentenced to three to five years in prison. The sentence was suspended, and Mother was 

placed on probation with a requirement that she complete an in-patient substance abuse 

treatment program. She entered a treatment program on June 20, 2013. Mother did not 

complete the program, however, and was discharged from the treatment facility on 

October 18, 2013. As a consequence, her probation was revoked and on November 7, 
2

2013, Mother was ordered to complete her prison sentence.

[¶6] After Mother went to prison, Grandparents, for the first time, sought to have SO 

placed with them. Their request was discussed at a November 21, 2013, meeting of the 

Multidisciplinary Team. A majority of MDT members recommended that SO should 

remain in the care of Foster Parents, and also recommended termination of Mother’s 

parental rights.

[¶7] Following this meeting, Grandparents sought permission to intervene in the case, 

and that petition was granted. Grandparents also petitioned the court to place SO in their 

care and applied with DFS to become SO’s foster parents. Acting on this application, 

DFS completed a home study which recommended against placing SO with 

Grandparents. As a result of this study, DFS denied Grandparents’ application to become 

foster parents. In response, Grandparents hired an independent expert to perform a 

second home study. That study concluded that Grandparents were an appropriate 

placement option for SO.

[¶8] At a hearing in June of 2014, the juvenile court accepted the MDT’s 

recommendation to change the permanency plan to adoption. It also ordered that SO

remain in the physical custody of Foster Parents. In a separate proceeding in district 

court, DFS petitioned to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Following a trial, the district 

court granted that petition. Mother appealed, and we affirmed the district court’s 

decision. SSO v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs., 2015 WY 124, 357 P.3d 754, 755 (Wyo. 

2015).

[¶9] A subsequent permanency hearing was held in July of 2015. During that hearing, 

the juvenile court also heard Grandparents’ motion asking that SO be removed from 

Foster Parents and placed with them. In its order, entered November 6, 2015, the 

juvenile court confirmed a permanency plan of adoption, and ordered that SO should 

continue to be placed with Foster Parents. This order, in effect, also denied 

Grandparents’ motion to place SO with them. Grandparents subsequently appealed the 

denial of their motion to change placement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶10] The guiding principle of Wyoming’s Child Protection Act, as stated by the 

legislature, is that a “child’s health, safety and welfare shall be of paramount concern in 

implementing and enforcing this article.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-201 (LexisNexis 

2015). Thus, at its core, a juvenile court’s decision regarding placement of a child must 

be based on the child’s best interests. We review such a decision for abuse of discretion. 

In cases where the trial court is required to make a

determination that is in the “best interest of the child,” we 
3

have regularly applied an abuse of discretion standard of 

review. This standard applies in adoption cases:

The district court has the power and discretion to grant 

an adoption without parental consent, provided all the 

statutory elements are satisfied. In the Matter of the 

Adoption of SMR, MVC v. MB, 982 P.2d 1246, 1248 

(Wyo. 1999). This Court reviews adoption decrees by 

applying the abuse of discretion standard. In the 

Matter of Adoption of TLC, TOC v. TND, 2002 WY 

76, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 863, 867-68 (Wyo. 2002).

TF v. Dep’t of Family Serv. (In re CF), 2005 WY 118, ¶ 10, 

120 P.3d 992, 998 (Wyo. 2005). It also applies in child 

custody cases: “We have stated before that ‘[c]ustody, 

visitation, child support, and alimony are all committed to the 

sound discretion of the district court.’” Blakely v. Blakely, 

2009 WY 127, ¶ 6, 218 P.3d 253, 254 (Wyo. 2009). The 

fundamental goal in adoption and child custody cases is to 

arrive at a result that is in the best interests of the child. 

Similarly, the “best interests of the children” are at the heart 

of the permanency decision in this case. Accordingly, we will 

apply the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the district 

court’s decision.

JO v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs. (In the Interest of RE), 2011 WY 170, ¶ 10, 267 P.3d 

1092, 1096 (Wyo. 2011). See also KC v. State (In the Interest of GC), 2015 WY 73, ¶ 

18, 351 P.3d 236, 242 (Wyo. 2015).

[¶11] “In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the ultimate issue is 

whether or not the court could reasonably conclude as it did.” GWJ v. MH (In re BGH), 

930 P.2d 371, 377-78 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting Martinez v. State, 611 P.2d 831, 838 (Wyo. 

1980)). “A court does not abuse its discretion unless it acts in a manner which exceeds 

the bounds of reason under the circumstances.” GWJ, 930 P.2d at 377.

Assessment of the circumstances of this case, in the 

context of alleged abuse of discretion, is tantamount to an 

evaluation of whether the evidence is sufficient to support the 

decision of the district court. In review of the evidence, we 

accept the successful party’s submissions, granting them 

every favorable inference fairly to be drawn and leaving out 

of consideration conflicting evidence presented by the 

unsuccessful party. 
4

Basolo v. Basolo, 907 P.2d 348, 353 (Wyo. 1995) (citing Cranston v. Cranston, 879 P.2d 

345, 351 (Wyo. 1994)).

DISCUSSION

[¶12] The juvenile court held a permanency hearing in SO’s case on July 28, 2015. At 

this same hearing, it also considered Grandparents’ motion to place SO with them. The 

juvenile court heard testimony from the DFS caseworker, a child psychologist, and 

Grandmother. It also considered voluminous information in the record, including 

periodic reports and recommendations from DFS and from the MDT. After considering 

the evidence, the juvenile court ruled that “the permanency plan of adoption is in the best 

interest of the child,” and that SO should continue to be placed with Foster Parents. 

Accordingly, it denied Grandparents’ motion to place SO with them. The question before 

us is whether the court abused its discretion when it made that choice.

[¶13] In our review, we consider the evidence favorable to DFS and Foster Parents, and 

give them the benefit of every favorable inference fairly drawn from that evidence. We 

leave out of consideration conflicting evidence presented by Grandparents. Basolo, 907 

P.2d at 353. Applying this standard of review, we find that the evidence is more than 

sufficient to demonstrate that the juvenile court did not make an unreasonable decision.

[¶14] Grandparents do not identify or suggest that there were any inadequacies in the 

care provided by Foster Parents. Their contention of error appears to be based solely 

upon their familial relationship. In short, they contend that the child should be placed 

with them simply because they are SO’s grandparents. We disagree.

[¶15] We begin by noting that SO had been in Foster Parents’ care since three days after 

her birth, and at the time of the permanency hearing she had been in their care 

approximately two and a half years. By all accounts, she was thriving in that situation. 

Testimony indicated that changing placement could be detrimental to SO. The child 

psychologist, though not familiar with SO’s individual case, provided the juvenile court 

with general information about early childhood development, attachment, bonding, and 

the effects of changing placement. She indicated that a permanent change in placement 

affects a child “just like a death, so if they no longer have the caregiver in their life, 

they’ve lost that person.” She testified that two-year-olds may react with grief, 

“significant regression in their skills,” increased anxiety, and fear of abandonment. This 

testimony echoed concerns expressed by the DFS caseworker that, given the attachments 

formed between SO and Foster Parents, removing her from their care would be harmful

to SO.

[¶16] Although the home study commissioned by Grandparents supported placement of 

SO with them, there was also evidence in the record that raised concerns about 
5

Grandparents’ ability to provide adequate care for SO. The DFS home study concluded 

that placement of SO with Grandparents was inappropriate, and listed several factors 

contributing to that conclusion. As previously mentioned, Mother’s four older children 

were in DFS custody when SO was born. Two of those children had been placed with 

Grandparents. After keeping the children for just over a year, Grandparents indicated

they were “tired,” “frustrated” and “burnt out,” and the children were placed elsewhere. 

While those children were in the care of Grandparents, there were concerns that the 

children had not been taken to medical, dental, and vision appointments. The DFS 

employee who conducted the home study also did “not get the sense” that Grandparents 

were “prepared to parent [SO] long term.” Instead, the DFS employee believed, 

Grandparents were motivated by a desire to reunite SO with Mother in the future, even 

though Mother’s parental rights to SO had been terminated. In addition, there was 

evidence that Mother left Grandparents’ care when she was eleven years old to live with 

her biological father. Mother’s sister left Grandparents’ care when she was twelve to live 

with her paternal grandmother.

[¶17] Grandparents do not contend that Foster Parents have failed to provide adequate 

care for SO. Rather, they assert that Wyoming’s “compelling preference” for placement 

with family tips the balance in their favor. The juvenile court was aware of that 

preference, but correctly concluded that the best interests of SO were paramount. As it 

explained in a subsequent order:

[A]lthough there is a ‘compelling preference’ that it is best to 

place a child with family, this is not an absolute rule, and the 

Court must consider the best interests of each child when 

making a placement decision. In this case family placement 

was not an option when the child was taken into custody. 

When it became an option, DFS considered the factors that it 

is required to evaluate under its rules and regulations, and it 

determined that [Grandparents] were not a suitable placement 

or adoptive home. When making the placement 

determination, the Court agreed that continued placement 

with the foster family was in the child’s best interests.

[¶18] The juvenile court’s reasoning is in accord with the statute governing permanency 

hearings, which provides that, “At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine 

whether the permanency plan is in the best interest of the child.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-

431(k). It is consistent with the Child Protection Act’s provision that a “child’s health, 

safety and welfare shall be of paramount concern.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-201. We 

acknowledge, as did the juvenile court, that there is a preference for family placements in 

Wyoming. TF v. Department of Family Serv. (In re CF), 2005 WY 118, ¶ 26, 120 P.3d 

992, 1002 (Wyo. 2005) (“We agree that, in general, preference should be given to family 

placements.”). However, the preference for family placement should not prevail over the 
6

“paramount concern” for the best interests of the child.

[¶19] The juvenile court determined that it was in the best interests of SO to remain in 

the custody of Foster Parents. It was within the court’s discretion to make this 

determination and, in turn, to deny Grandparents’ motion to place SO with them. The 

evidence available to the juvenile court, when viewed in a light most favorable to DFS 

and Foster Parents, demonstrates the reasonableness of this decision. The juvenile court 

did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm.