Background
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the termination of a mother’s parental rights to three children, holding that shortcomings in the Department of Family Services’ work did not interfere with her ability to understand or complete the steps required for reunification. The case began after deputies found drug paraphernalia in a hotel room where the mother had stayed with two of the children. The children appeared malnourished, and one had developmental concerns. The mother later entered a no-contest plea to neglect allegations and participated in a case plan addressing sobriety, substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, housing, employment, transportation, and visitation.
The record showed persistent obstacles to reunification. The mother lacked stable and safe housing, missed roughly 50 scheduled visits between September 2023 and June 2024, and did not complete important treatment goals. She admitted using methamphetamine while pregnant with the third child, who tested positive after birth and experienced withdrawal symptoms. A probation revocation led to incarceration, and transfers among correctional facilities delayed visitation. After her release, she remained in an unstable relationship and attended only five video visits with the youngest child over several months. Following a three-day bench trial, the district court terminated her rights under two separate provisions of Wyoming Statute § 14-2-309(a): subsection (iii), based on neglect and unsuccessful reasonable efforts to rehabilitate the family, and subsection (v), based on the children’s extended time in foster care and the mother’s continuing unfitness.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Fenn, writing for a unanimous court, rejected the mother’s argument that DFS acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to follow its own policies. The Court acknowledged several deficiencies: the caseworker did not meet monthly with the mother during incarceration, staffing limitations prevented DFS from providing more transportation, and prison transfers caused delays in arranging visits. But those failures did not resemble the agency breakdown that required reversal in MB v. Laramie County Department of Family Services. In MB, the agency gave the parent no meaningful tasks, failed to provide or review a case plan, omitted a visitation plan, and did not warn that noncompliance could lead to termination.
Here, by contrast, the mother helped create a case plan containing clear goals, received a visitation plan, and obtained accommodations when she requested different visitation locations. The plan expressly warned that DFS could seek termination if the children remained in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The Court therefore held that the acknowledged agency shortcomings did not prevent the mother from knowing what she had to do to preserve her parental rights and did not impermissibly interfere with those rights.
The Court also identified an independent basis for affirmance. The mother’s reasonable-efforts argument concerned subsection (a)(iii), but it did not challenge the district court’s separate ruling under subsection (a)(v). Whether children have spent 15 of the most recent 22 months in foster care is a mathematical inquiry independent of the reasonableness of DFS’s reunification efforts. Because each statutory ground can independently support termination, and because the mother abandoned any challenge to the subsection (a)(v) ruling, the Court affirmed on that ground as well.
Key Takeaways
- DFS policy or service failures do not automatically invalidate a termination order. The decisive question is whether the shortcomings materially interfered with the parent’s fundamental right and ability to pursue reunification.
- A clear, parent-participated case plan, a workable visitation plan, accommodations, and an express warning about the consequences of prolonged foster care can distinguish a case from MB, even when DFS’s performance is imperfect.
- Wyoming Statute § 14-2-309 provides independent grounds for termination. An appellant must challenge every ground sufficient to sustain the judgment or risk affirmance based on an abandoned issue.
Why It Matters
For Wyoming family-law practitioners, the decision sharpens both the merits and appellate strategy in termination cases. Evidence that DFS missed meetings, could not provide transportation, or delayed visitation remains relevant, but counsel must connect those deficiencies to an actual impairment of the parent’s opportunity to reunify. A general assertion that the agency failed to follow policy will not substitute for showing how that failure affected the parent’s knowledge, access, compliance, or fundamental rights.
The opinion also underscores a recurring appellate hazard: when a district court relies on multiple independent statutory grounds, the opening brief must attack each one. Even a substantial challenge to reasonable efforts under subsection (a)(iii) cannot undo a termination independently supported under subsection (a)(v) if that alternative ruling goes unchallenged.