Background
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Skylar Colten Remer’s parental rights to his son, BEP, holding that clear and convincing evidence established Remer was unfit to have custody and control of the child. BEP entered protective custody at five weeks old in December 2022 after hospital staff raised concerns about his care, including watered-down formula, inappropriate medication, and low weight. The Department of Family Services initially did not know the identity of BEP’s legal father. Once Remer was identified and paternity was established in May 2023, the Department’s case plan required him to build a safe relationship with BEP and demonstrate adequate parenting ability.
The Department arranged and paid for family counseling, supervised and therapeutic visits, parenting coaching, transportation assistance, home checks, and opportunities for community visits. It also invited Remer to BEP’s medical and therapy appointments and attempted regular communication. According to the termination petition, however, Remer did not consistently visit, failed to meaningfully engage in services, sometimes fell asleep during supervised visits, did not develop suitable parenting skills, and remained unstable in housing, finances, transportation, and mental-health treatment. BEP, meanwhile, had behavioral and trauma-related needs requiring consistent structure and skilled care.
After Remer failed to timely answer the May 2025 termination petition, the district court entered default. He did not seek to set the default aside. At the two-day termination hearing, he could cross-examine the Department’s and guardian ad litem’s witnesses but could not offer his own evidence. The district court terminated his rights under two independent statutory grounds: neglect coupled with unsuccessful rehabilitation efforts, and the child’s placement in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months combined with parental unfitness.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Hill, writing for a unanimous court, focused on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v). That provision requires clear and convincing proof that the child has been in state-supervised foster care for at least 15 of the most recent 22 months and that the parent is unfit to have custody and control. Because each statutory termination ground is independent, affirmance under subsection (a)(v) made it unnecessary to decide whether the evidence also satisfied subsection (a)(iii). The court also reiterated that reasonable reunification efforts are not an element of the 15-of-22-month ground.
Remer did not dispute the foster-care time requirement. On fitness, the court explained that the inquiry is child- and parent-specific and asks whether the parent can meet the child’s continuing physical, mental, and emotional needs and maintain a positive, nurturing relationship. Fitness is assessed at trial, but a court may consider the parent’s conduct over time because parental capacity is ordinarily revealed through a pattern rather than a single episode.
The record met that demanding standard. Because Remer defaulted, the petition’s well-pleaded allegations were treated as true, and the Department’s caseworker also testified to and contextualized those allegations. The evidence showed he had never demonstrated an ability to provide BEP’s basic daily care, much less address the child’s higher behavioral and trauma-related needs. His inconsistent visits, limited engagement in counseling and coaching, unresolved instability, and failure to obtain suitable housing supported the unfitness finding. The court rejected the argument that uncertainty about his exact housing status at trial defeated the finding: there was no evidence of stable housing, temporary improvement would not erase a long record of instability, and housing was only one part of the overall proof.
Key Takeaways
- Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(v), the Department must prove the 15-of-22-month foster-care period and current parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, but it need not separately prove reasonable reunification efforts.
- A parent’s fitness is measured at the time of trial, yet Wyoming courts may rely on a sustained history of instability, missed services, weak parenting skills, and inability to meet the particular child’s needs.
- A default in a termination case can have major evidentiary consequences: unchallenged petition allegations may be deemed true, while the defaulting parent may be limited to cross-examination if the default is not set aside.
Why It Matters
For Wyoming practitioners, the decision is a clear roadmap for litigating the state’s 15-of-22-month termination ground. The foster-care period is essentially a mathematical inquiry, while unfitness turns on the parent’s demonstrated capacity in the context of the specific child. Counsel should build or challenge that record over the full life of the case rather than treating the parent’s circumstances on the hearing date as the only relevant evidence.
The opinion also underscores the stakes of procedural defaults in cases implicating fundamental family rights. A parent who does not timely respond—and does not move to set aside the default—may lose the ability to present affirmative evidence at the termination hearing. For agencies and parent counsel alike, the case emphasizes careful pleading, proof tied to the child’s actual needs, and prompt attention to every procedural deadline.