Background
Hailey Nicole Keller (Mother) and Corey Phillip Cruz (Father) had four children together, three of whom are the subjects of this consolidated appeal. Beginning in May 2022, police found the middle child—wearing only a diaper—wandering the streets of Rawlins. The Wyoming Department of Family Services (DFS) found the parents neglectful, created a safety plan, and reunified the family after the parents complied. In April 2023, police found the same child wandering again. The following month, DFS responded to a report of the child near railroad tracks wearing oversized pants; Mother appeared intoxicated when she arrived. DFS took all three children into protective custody in May 2023 and filed a neglect petition.
Juvenile court proceedings produced a reunification-centered case plan that both parents signed after participating in its development. The plan required sobriety, random drug testing, stable employment and housing, and regular contact with DFS. Progress was sporadic. Parents periodically tested positive for methamphetamine and alcohol; Father left inpatient treatment the same day he arrived in early 2024 (his probation was revoked), eventually completing treatment at the Central Wyoming Counseling Center in July 2024. A domestic violence incident in July 2023—Father placed his hands around Mother’s neck—added to the Department’s concerns. By June 2025, two months before trial, Father tested positive for methamphetamine and Mother for THC. Video visitation, resumed shortly before trial, caused behavioral deterioration in the two older children. In April 2024, DFS informed the multidisciplinary team (MDT) it would pursue termination; the juvenile court adopted adoption as the new permanency plan.
DFS filed its Petition for Termination of Parental Rights in October 2024 under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii) (failure to rehabilitate despite DFS’s reasonable efforts) and § 14-2-309(a)(v) (child in foster care 15 of the past 22 months plus parental unfitness). Father defaulted on the petition; the district court denied his motion to set aside the default. After a four-day bench trial in August 2025, the district court terminated both parents’ rights on both statutory grounds and found termination in the children’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
Affirmed. The Wyoming Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and affirmed on all issues. Termination of parental rights is subject to strict scrutiny and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; on appeal, the Court examines the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and applies a highly deferential standard.
As to Father, the Court rejected his argument that DFS’s procedural failures—failure to update the case and visitation plans and to complete risk assessments—rendered termination arbitrary and capricious under MB v. Laramie Cnty. Dep't of Fam. Servs., 933 P.2d 1126 (Wyo. 1997). In MB, DFS created a case plan with no tasks, never gave the mother a copy, never reviewed it with her, and never warned her that termination was possible. Here, both parents co-created and signed the case plan, attended quarterly MDT meetings at which progress was discussed, received MDT reports after each meeting, and were explicitly warned of the intent to seek termination. The procedural gaps, though real, did not impair Father’s fundamental right to parent. Separately, because Father did not challenge sufficiency of evidence under § 14-2-309(a)(v), he abandoned that ground, and the Court affirmed on it without further analysis.
As to Mother, the Court addressed two distinct arguments. First, she contended § 14-2-309(a)(v) requires DFS to prove it made reasonable reunification efforts. The Court flatly rejected this. Neither the text of the statute nor binding precedent imposes that requirement under subsection (v). Matter of KCS, 2019 WY 15, ¶ 12, 433 P.3d 892, 896 (Wyo. 2019). The special concurrence in Matter of BAD, 2019 WY 83, had urged incorporating such a requirement, but concurring opinions do not establish law. Mother’s argument that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-440(a) of the Child Protection Act creates a reasonable-efforts prerequisite also failed: that provision applies to neglect proceedings in juvenile court, which are “entirely separate and distinct from” termination proceedings conducted in district court. Matter of AM-LR, 2018 WY 76, ¶ 9, 421 P.3d 551, 554. Second, Mother challenged the sufficiency of evidence on parental unfitness. The Court applied the multi-factor framework from LeBlanc v. State Dep't of Fam. Servs., 2017 WY 107, ¶ 23, 401 P.3d 932, 936, and found clear and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s finding: Mother’s substance-use pattern, sporadic contact with children, contribution to the children’s mental health problems, unstable housing and employment, lack of emotional bond with two of the three children, and behavioral deterioration in the children during resumed video visits collectively established unfitness. The Court acknowledged Mother had taken some steps toward improvement but held that when a parent’s rights and a child’s right to stability conflict, the child’s interest prevails.
Key Takeaways
- Termination under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v) requires only two showings—the child has been in foster care for 15 of the preceding 22 months, and the parent is unfit—and does not require DFS to prove it made reasonable reunification efforts; neither the statute nor controlling precedent imposes that third requirement, and the special concurrence in Matter of BAD advocating otherwise carries no stare decisis weight.
- DFS procedural failures (failure to update case plans, incomplete risk assessments) defeat a termination order only if they impaired the parent’s fundamental right to parent—the MB threshold requires systemic, structural failures, not documentation gaps where the parent was actually informed of obligations and warned of the termination risk.
- A parent who fails to appeal the sufficiency of evidence on one independent statutory ground for termination abandons that ground; the appellate court will affirm on it without further review.
- Parental unfitness under § 14-2-309(a)(v) is an aggregate, pattern-based determination; no single incident is required, and the district court may consider the full history of conduct—including substance use, domestic violence, supervision failures, and deterioration of children during parental contact—to reach a clear-and-convincing finding.
Why It Matters
For Wyoming family law practitioners, Keller & Cruz provides important clarifications on two recurring termination battlegrounds. First, it shuts the door—firmly, for now—on the argument that § 14-2-309(a)(v) incorporates a reasonable-efforts requirement. DFS has long preferred to proceed under subsection (v) in chronic neglect cases where the child has aged into the 15-of-22-months threshold because that subsection avoids litigating the adequacy of reunification services. Keller & Cruz confirms that strategy is legitimate; practitioners defending parents should redirect their energy to challenging the unfitness finding rather than disputing reunification efforts under this subsection.
Second, the Court’s treatment of MB confirms that procedural challenges to DFS’s case management have real but limited force. MB protects parents from termination where DFS’s failures leave a parent without a roadmap or warning; it does not protect a parent whose noncompliance is the primary story. Where DFS created a signed case plan, held quarterly MDT meetings, filed reports, and warned of termination—even if updates were missed—the MB threshold will not be met. Defense counsel should assess early whether the DFS file contains the MB-level structural failures (no tasks, no notice, no plan delivery) or mere execution gaps, and calibrate their strategy accordingly.