Court Opinion

ID: 9955080
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 16:18:27.237873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:14.909221
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

                                                 2024 WY 35

                                                                       OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2023

                                                                                    March 27, 2024

 IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION
 OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: MMD, JID
 and DRD, minor children,

 RODGER WILLIAM DILLARD,

 Appellant
 (Respondent),
                                                                        S-23-0167
 v.

 STATE OF WYOMING, ex rel.
 DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES,

 Appellee
 (Petitioner).

                        Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County
                           The Honorable Kerri M. Johnson, Judge

Representing Appellant:
      Robert S. Casteel II, Law Office of Robert Casteel, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee:
      Bridget L. Hill, Wyoming Attorney General; Christina F. McCabe, Deputy Attorney
      General.

Office of the Guardian ad Litem:
       Joseph R. Belcher, Director.

Before FOX, C.J., and *KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

* Justice Kautz retired from judicial office effective March 26, 2024, and, pursuant to Article 5, § 5 of the Wyoming
Constitution and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-106(f) (2023), he was reassigned to act on this matter on March 27, 2024.
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.
BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] Rodger William Dillard challenges the district court’s decision to terminate his
parental rights to M.D., J.D., and D.D. pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii), (iv),
and (v) (2023). Mr. Dillard claims the district court erred when it found the Department
of Family Services (the Department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family. We
affirm the district court’s order terminating Mr. Dillard’s parental rights under subsection
(iv).

                                                  ISSUE

[¶2]    Mr. Dillard states the issue as:

                Did the district court err by finding that the Wyoming
                Department of Family Services made reasonable efforts to
                reunify the parent with the children the subject of this TPR
                case? 1

                                                 FACTS

[¶3] Mr. Dillard is the biological grandfather of M.D., J.D., and D.D. Mr. Dillard’s son
and daughter-in-law had their parental rights to the three children terminated in Montana.
In August 2017, Mr. Dillard and his wife, Marilee Dillard, adopted the children. Three
years later, Mr. Dillard and Marilee divorced and stipulated to Marilee having custody of
the children with reasonable visitation by Mr. Dillard. In December 2020, Marilee passed
away.

[¶4] Shortly after Marilee passed away, a family member reported to M.D.’s and J.D.’s
school that both children disclosed sexual abuse by Mr. Dillard. The school contacted the
Department, and the Department forwarded the report of sexual abuse to the Natrona
County Sheriff’s Department. The Sheriff’s Department took protective custody of all
three children and conducted forensic interviews. During the forensic interviews, J.D. and
M.D. disclosed Mr. Dillard sexually abused them.

[¶5] Mr. Dillard was eventually charged with one count of first-degree sexual abuse of a
minor, two counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor, and two counts of third-
degree sexual abuse of a minor. The Department simultaneously filed a petition against

1
  To the extent Mr. Dillard raises an issue related to the reasonable efforts finding in the juvenile court’s
order changing the permanency plan to adoption, that order is not presently before us on appeal. We do not
allow a party to collaterally attack a permanency order under the guise of an appeal from an order
terminating parental rights. E.g., In re AM-LR, 2018 WY 76, ¶ 10, 421 P.3d 551, 554 (Wyo. 2018)
(declining to allow a collateral attack of a permanency order on an appeal of an order terminating parental
rights). We therefore decline to address this issue.

                                                     1
Mr. Dillard alleging he neglected all three children and abused J.D. and M.D. Mr. Dillard
stipulated to the allegations of neglect, and the juvenile court adjudicated the children as
neglected. The initial goal in the juvenile proceeding was to reunify the children with Mr.
Dillard. However, in February 2022, after the children had been in the Department’s
custody for more than a year, the Department requested the permanency plan be changed
to adoption. The juvenile court set the matter for an evidentiary permanency hearing.

[¶6] Following the evidentiary permanency hearing in April, the juvenile court ordered
the permanency plan to be changed to adoption due to the lack of progress Mr. Dillard
made on his Family Service Case Plan with the Department. The court found the
Department made reasonable efforts to reunify the children with Mr. Dillard, but
“reunification w[ould] not be a viable option any time soon, and reunification [was] not in
the best interest of the minor children.”

[¶7] In June, pursuant to a plea agreement, Mr. Dillard entered an Alford plea to two
counts of sexual abuse of a minor in the third degree, and the State agreed to dismiss the
remaining counts. The district court sentenced Mr. Dillard to concurrent sentences of three
to five years on each of the two counts. See Dillard v. State, 2023 WY 73, ¶ 3, 533 P.3d
179, 180 (Wyo. 2023).

[¶8] Soon after, the Department filed a petition to terminate Mr. Dillard’s parental rights.
The petition alleged three statutory grounds for termination under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-
309(a)(iii), (iv), and (v). The district court held a three-day bench trial in April 2023.
Following the trial, the court found the Department established all three grounds by clear
and convincing evidence, and terminating Mr. Dillard’s parental rights was in the
children’s best interest. The court subsequently entered a written order terminating Mr.
Dillard’s parental rights to the children. Mr. Dillard timely appealed.

                                       DISCUSSION

[¶9]   Our standard for reviewing a termination of parental rights is as follows:

              Due to the tension between the fundamental liberty of familial
              association and the compelling state interest in protecting the
              welfare of children, application of statutes for termination of
              parental rights is a matter for strict scrutiny. As part of this
              strict scrutiny standard, a case for termination of parental rights
              must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Clear
              and convincing evidence is that kind of proof that would
              persuade a trier of fact that the truth of a contention is highly
              probable. Rigorous though this standard may be, we apply our
              traditional principles of evidentiary review when a party
              challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting

                                              2
                termination. Thus, we examine the evidence in the light most
                favorable to the party prevailing below, assuming all favorable
                evidence to be true while discounting conflicting evidence
                presented by the unsuccessful party.

Matter of ALRW, 2023 WY 20, ¶ 18, 525 P.3d 627, 631 (Wyo. 2023) (quoting Matter of
JPL, 2021 WY 94, ¶ 21, 493 P.3d 174, 179–80 (Wyo. 2021)).

[¶10] The district court terminated Mr. Dillard’s parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §
14-2-309(a)(iii), (iv), and (v). The various statutory bases for termination of parental rights
are separate and independent, and we need only conclude the evidence is sufficient on one
of those grounds to affirm. ALRW, 2023 WY 20, ¶ 19, 525 P.3d at 631 (citation omitted);
In re SMH, 2012 WY 165, ¶ 20, 290 P.3d 1104, 1109 (Wyo. 2012) (citation omitted). Mr.
Dillard acknowledges as much in his brief, yet his sole argument on appeal is that the
Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify him with the children before
terminating his parental rights.

[¶11] It is unnecessary for us to consider Mr. Dillard’s argument because the record
definitively supports our decision to affirm the district court’s order terminating his
parental rights under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iv). 2 This provision states:

                (a) The parent-child legal relationship may be terminated if . .
                .
                (iv) The parent is incarcerated due to the conviction of a felony
                and a showing that the parent is unfit to have the custody and
                control of the child[.]

Id.

[¶12] Mr. Dillard is incarcerated as result of his felony convictions for sexual abuse of a
minor in the third degree under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-316. As to Mr. Dillard’s fitness, the
district court found Mr. Dillard was unfit because he could not meet the ongoing physical,
mental, and emotional needs of the children. The court reasoned Mr. Dillard denied he
caused any trauma or harm to the children and blamed others for their mistreatment, he did
not understand the children’s needs or acknowledge the care required to address the
children’s mental health difficulties, and he could not address their needs even if he was
not incarcerated. The court also found it would be in the best interest of the children to
terminate Mr. Dillard’s parental rights. Mr. Dillard does not challenge these factual
findings or legal conclusions.

2
 We do not consider the merits of the district court’s termination order under § 14-2-309(a)(iii) or (v).
ALRW, 2023 WY 20, ¶ 19, 525 P.3d at 631 (citation omitted).

                                                   3
[¶13] Affirmed.

                  4