Opinion ID: 2586510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶ 19] It is difficult to pinpoint the standard of review that should be applied here because we have a convergence of several issues of constitutional magnitude, as well as clear expressions of legislative intent. The activities of DFS in the arena at hand are guided in part by federal statutes that are a part of the Social Security Act. Of particular importance here is 42 U.S.C.A. § 671(a)(19) (LexisNexis 2008) which provides: § 671. State plan for foster care and adoption assistance (a) Requisite features of State plan. In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part [42 USCA §§ 670 et seq.] it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which . . . . (19)provides that the State shall consider giving preference to an adult relative over a non-related caregiver when determining a placement for a child, provided that the relative caregiver meets all relevant State child protection standards. [¶ 20] The district court found that the only Wyoming statute that discusses relative placement is Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-429(b)(iii) (LexisNexis 2009), and the GAL agreed with that proposition. That statute provides: § 14-3-429. Decree where child adjudged neglected; dispositions; terms and conditions; legal custody. . . . . (b) If the child is found to be neglected the court may: (i) Permit the child to remain in the legal custody of his parents, guardian or custodian without protective supervision, subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the court; (ii) Place the child under protective supervision; (iii) Transfer temporary legal custody to a relative or other suitable adult the court finds qualified to receive and care for the child, with or without supervision, subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the court; . . . [Emphasis added.] [¶ 21] However, § 14-3-431(m)(i) (LexisNexis 2009) provides: § 14-3-431. Duration of orders of disposition; termination of permanency hearings; petition for termination of parental rights. (m) When a child has been placed in foster care under the responsibility of the state for fifteen (15) of the most recent twenty-two (22) months the state shall file a petition to terminate parental rights or seek to be joined as a party to the petition if a petition has been filed by another party, unless: (i) The child is in the care of a relative; [Emphasis added.] Also see Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-440 (LexisNexis 2009) (reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify the family); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-427(d)(iv) and (f) (LexisNexis 2009) (court may appoint a relative to MDT; MDT shall give consideration to best interests of family); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-201 (LexisNexis 2009) articulates that a primary purpose of child protective services is to . . . preserve family life whenever possible. . . .; finally, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-208(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2009) provides: § 14-3-208. Temporary protective custody, order, time limitation; remedial health care. (a) When a child is taken into temporary protective custody pursuant to W.S. 14-3-405(a) and (b), the person taking custody shall immediately notify the local department of family services office and place or transfer temporary protective custody to the local department of family services office as soon as practicable. The local department of family services office shall: (i) Accept physical custody of the child; (ii) Make reasonable efforts to inform the parent, noncustodial parent or other person responsible for the child's welfare that the child has been taken into temporary protective custody, unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (iii) Arrange for care and supervision of the child in the most appropriate and least restrictive setting necessary to meet the child's needs, including foster homes or other child care facilities certified by the department or approved by the court. When it is in the best interest of the child, the department shall place the child with the child's noncustodial birth parent or with the child's extended family, including adult siblings, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts or uncles. Prior to approving placement with the child's noncustodial birth parent or extended family, the department shall determine whether anyone living in the home has been convicted of a crime involving serious harm to children or has a substantiated case listed on the central registry established pursuant to W.S. 14-3-213. The department may leave the child in the care of a physician or hospital when necessary to ensure the child receives proper care. A neglected child shall not be placed in a jail or detention facility other than for a delinquent act; [¶ 22] The Family Services Manual, Chapter 7 Section B (RELATIVE/KINSHIP CARE AND DILIGENT SEARCH), p. 7-B-5 (2008) articulates a series of guiding principles that stress the importance of kinship care, and item F [r]eflects a priority for placing children, siblings together, with kin whenever out-of-home placement is necessary. It goes on to say that: By law, relative/kinship families are the placement of preference for children. The Wyoming Program Improvement Plan makes relative and kinship placements high priority for children placed in out of home care . . . DFS shall consider relative/kinship families as the placement of preference[.] DFS is required to make a diligent search for such kinship placements. Throughout this Chapter, the importance of kinship placements is stressed. DFS Policy 5.7 (2008) states that its purpose recognizes: Relative and kinship placements are less restrictive and therefore preferable to other types of out-of-home care. The DFS caseworker is responsible for conducting an ongoing diligent search for relatives and kin for any child in DFS custody until permanency is achieved. DFS shall consider relative/kinship families as both temporary and permanent resources for children who are unable to live safely with a parent. DFS recognizes that relative/kinship families are important to a child's sense of identity, belonging, and long term connections. [¶ 23] When an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children study was finally done, Uncle and Aunt were given extremely high marks for their ability to take in Mother's children. The Bonding Study done for the permanency hearing also attested to Uncle's and Aunt's ability to bond with Daughter especially, but also with Son (especially when the two children are placed in the same home environment). [¶ 24] We have repeatedly held that family relations such as those at issue here are fundamental and are protected by principles of constitutional proportions: In applying our standard of review, we keep in mind that the right to associate with one's family is fundamental and strictly scrutinize petitions to terminate a parent's rights to his or her children. C.L. [ v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 2007 WY 23], ¶ 9, 151 P.3d [1102] at 1105; SLB [ v. JEO, 2006 WY 74], ¶ 7, 136 P.3d [797] at 799-800; TF v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 118, ¶ 15, 120 P.3d 992, 1000 (Wyo.2005). DFS has the obligation to establish by clear and convincing evidence that termination is appropriate. SLJ [ v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 3 ], ¶ 19, 104 P.3d [74] at 79-80. `Clear and convincing evidence is that kind of proof that would persuade a trier of fact that the truth of the contention is highly probable.' Id., quoting MN v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2003 WY 135, ¶ 5, 78 P.3d 232, 234 (Wyo.2003). R.L.A. v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services, 2009 WY 109, ¶ 13, 215 P.3d 266, 268 (Wyo.2009). [¶ 25] In DS v. Department of Public Assistance and Social Services, 607 P.2d 911, 918 (Wyo.1980) we held: In addition, we are helped in our task by a large body of state and federal constitutional law defining the interests individuals have in their family associations. The right to associate with one's immediate family is a fundamental liberty protected by the state and federal constitutions. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972) (integrity of the family unit protected by the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); and Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (implication that liberties guaranteed by the federal constitution are fundamental). See, also, State ex rel. Heller v. Miller, 61 Ohio St.2d 6, 399 N.E.2d 66 (1980). Analysis of the Wyoming Constitution and case law also leads to the conclusion that the right to associate with one's family is a fundamental liberty. Article 1, Sections 2, 6, 7 and 36, Wyoming Constitution; Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler, Wyo., 606 P.2d 310 (1980); Matter of Adoption of Voss, Wyo., 550 P.2d 481 (1976); and In re Adoption of Strauser, 65 Wyo. 98, 196 P.2d 862 (1948). [¶ 26] In Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio, 431 U.S. 494, 97.S.Ct. 1932, 1938-39, 52 L.Ed.2d 531 (also see concurrence 1939-42) (1977) the United States Supreme Court held: Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition. Over the years millions of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning child rearing, which [ Wisconsin v. ] Yoder [406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972], Meyer [ v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923)], Pierce [ v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925)] and other cases have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children. Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what happened here. Also see 2 Ann M. Haralambie, Handling Child Custody, Abuse, and Adoption Cases, §§ 12:31(Kinship care) and 12:32 (Finding an alternative caregiver) (West 2009). [¶ 27] Based on these authorities we conclude that, as a matter of ageless tradition, as a matter of federal law, and as a matter of Wyoming law, there exists a compelling preference that what is best for a child in circumstances such as those presented here, is placement with nuclear or extended family members.