Opinion ID: 2548772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Attempts to Rehabilitate the Family

Text: [¶ 26] We now turn our focus to the second element of § 14-2-309(a)(iii), unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate the family. As we have discussed above, DFS presented sufficient evidence of neglect to warrant placement of KLS in its custody and imposition of the requirements of the case plan as condition precedent to reunification of the family. When family reunification is the goal of the case plan, the statute imposes on DFS the responsibility to provide reasonable services necessary to accomplish that goal and sets out the steps the parents must take before reunification can occur. SED, ¶ 16. The record is replete with instances of DFS' fulfillment of its responsibilities and Father's failure to fulfill his. [¶ 27] After failing to appear for the May 9, 2002, meeting to develop the case plan, Mother and Father appeared at a second meeting and stipulated to the plan prepared by DFS. The plan contained nine objectives and clearly warned that failure or refusal to successfully complete the case plan for family reunification would result in alternative permanency planning for said minor child, i.e. termination of parental rights, followed by adoption. The district court made the following findings regarding Father's failure to follow the case plan: Objective 1: Substance abuse evaluation and treatment/counseling to address [addiction] and/or use of methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol. [Father did not complete]. ... Father failed to attend a substance abuse evaluation at Piedmont. He [did] participate in a substance abuse evaluation at Big Horn Counseling in Basin, Wyoming. The results of that evaluation are questionable because Father falsely reported no history of abusive use of alcohol or drugs, and that he had lost his temper only once in the last three years. Objective 2: Counseling to address issues such as but not limited to relationships, parenting, effective appropriate communication, anger and control issues. [Father did not complete]. Father failed to attend anger management counseling as recommended by Big Horn Counseling. ... Objective 3: Parenting Classes. [Father did not attend] classes offered by DFS. Objective 4: Child Support. Neither parent has paid support during the pendency of [these] proceedings. Father did not provide proof of employment.... Objective 5: Random UAs and breathalizer. ... Father complied with 7 of a possible 46 UAs. [One] of 7 was positive for methamphetamine. Objective 6: Establishing paternity was accomplished. Objective 7: Contact with [KLS]. Failure to visit and provide nurturing for a child is neglect. [Father did not visit] KLS regularly despite the fact that many different visitation plans were developed by DFS, with input from parents, to accommodate their schedules. Father attended less than half of scheduled visits.... ... Objective 8: Father and Mother will secure and maintain adequate, consistent, and safe housing for a minimum of six consecutive months. [Father did not complete.] After February 2002, when the Case Plan went into effect, Father provided DFS with many different addresses and telephone numbers.... Telephone numbers that were provided by [Father] were not always accurate and DFS was not always able to contact [Father]. [¶ 28] Father does not dispute the factual findings of the district court regarding his failures to meet the requirements of the case plan. Of the nine requisites in the case plan, the evidence demonstrated Father fully complied with only one  determining his paternity. Accordingly, the district court's finding regarding this element is fully supported by the evidence.