Court Opinion

ID: 9565787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:27:49.453286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:53.337256
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice.
After an adjudicatory hearing1 held on January 19 and 30,1989, the District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, sitting as a juvenile court, issued its order finding that the state had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother, D.M., had neglected her children, N.M. and A.C.2 The juvenile court based the finding of neglect on
the period of August 14, 1988, through October 6, 1988, [when the mother] left the Minor Children in the care of [another] family. During the above mentioned period of time [the mother] visited the children at irregular times and without notice to the [family]. Also during the above mentioned time, [A.C.] developed a severe ear infection and although [the mother] was notified of the infection, she *565took no steps to have [A.C.] treated thereby causing the * * * family to seek treatment and medication for [A.C.] at their own expense.
The children’s mother, in her framing of the issue,3 asks us to reverse the juvenile court’s finding of neglect:
Is the finding of neglect on the part of the mother of the minor children so totally unsupported by the evidence as to require a reversal?
The state presents two issues:
I. Were the factual allegations underlying the court’s finding of neglect established by a preponderance of the evidence?
II. Did the lower court reach its finding of neglect in substantial compliance with requirements of the juvenile court act? We affirm.
The juvenile court’s finding of neglect was based upon W.S. 14-6-201(a)(xvi)(B)(II) (Cum.Supp.1987).4 We believe that there is sufficient evidence, however, to support the juvenile court’s finding of neglect based upon W.S. 14-6-201(a)(xvi)(A),5 which contains the alternative definition of neglect.6
In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence we
1. Give considerable deference to the trial court's determination because it has the advantage to judge the demeanor and intelligence of the witnesses;
2. Examine the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee and resolve all conflicts in evidence for appellee;
3. Assume as true the evidence in ap-pellee’s favor, disregard entirely appellant’s evidence in conflict with appellee’s evidence, and give to appellee’s evidence every favorable inference that may fairly be drawn.
Matter of RJP, 761 P.2d 1000, 1002 (Wyo.1988).
The mother of the family who cared for the children during the period of alleged neglect (August 14 — October 6, 1988) testified at the adjudicatory hearing that she felt the obligation to feed and clothe the children. She also testified that she provided, without reimbursement, “food and diapers” for the children. Another member of the family testified that she had paid for the medication used to treat an ear infection one of the children had developed during the period of alleged neglect.
The state’s burden of proof in an adjudication of neglect is set forth in W.S. 14-6-225(a) (July 1986 Repl.): “Allegations of conduct showing a child to be neglected must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.” In addition, under the appropriate standard of review, the juvenile court’s finding of neglect is entitled to considerable deference, and the prevailing party is entitled to every favorable inference that may fairly be drawn from its evidence. Based upon the above testimony, there was sufficient evidence for the juvenile court to find that D.M.’s conduct toward her children constituted neglect.7 In other words, D.M. as the children’s “custodian failed * * * to provide adequate care, maintenance, medical * * * or any other care necessary for the child[ren’s] well being.” W.S. 14-6-201(a)(xvi)(A).
The juvenile court’s finding of neglect is affirmed.

. W.S. 14-6-226(b) (July 1986 Repl.) provides in pertinent part: “If the allegations of [neglect in] the [state's] petition are denied, [the juvenile court will set the matter] for an adjudicatory * * * hearing.”

. W.S. 14-6-226(c) (July 1986 Repl.) states: “If after an adjudicatory hearing * * * the [juvenile] court * * * finds that a child * * * is neglected, it shall enter a decree to that effect stating the jurisdictional facts upon which the decree is based.”

. The juvenile court also conducted a disposition hearing, as mandated by W.S. 14-6-229(a) (July 1986 Repl.) after children are adjudicated to be neglected, on October 17, 1989. D.M. does not, however, raise any issues concerning the disposition hearing.

. This particular section involves, inter alia, neglect which results in "physical injury” to the child.

. The section states that a "Neglected child” means a child "whose custodian has failed or refused to provide adequate care, maintenance, supervision, education or medical, surgical or any other care necessary for the child’s well being.”

. We can affirm the case on any basis found in the record. In the Matter of the Adoption of RDS, 787 P.2d 968, 970 (Wyo.1990).

. See State in Interest of C, 638 P.2d 165, 172 (Wyo.1981).