Current Termination of Parental Rights Statute: an Incentive to Avoid the Court System

• Jurisdiction: Wyoming,United States
• Citation: Vol. 31 No. 6 Pg. 4
• Pages: 4
• Publication year: 2008

Wyoming Bar Journal 2008.

Vol. 31, No. 6, 4. Current Termination of Parental Rights Statute: An Incentive to Avoid the Court System

Wyoming Bar Journal
Issue: December, 2008

Author: Stacey L. Obrecht

Current Termination of Parental Rights Statute: An Incentive to Avoid the Court System

In 2006, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case In the Interest of ANO: SLB v. JEO, 2006 WY 74, 1136 P.3d 797 regarding Wyo. Stat. 14-2-309(a)(i). This decision affects many custodial parents, particularly those with a prior decree giving them custody and ordering the noncustodial parent to pay child support. For years, a provision of the Wyoming Termination of Parental Rights statute was interpreted to allow for the termination of the rights of a parent who has neither seen, nor cared for or supported his or her child for over one year. In support of the court's decision, the Supreme Court properly relied on statutory interpretation guidelines and prior precedent (In the Matter of Parental Rights of SCN and NAN 659 P.2d 568, 573-74 (Wyo. 1983)). However, when read with other statutes, the result seems inconsistent and the likely original intent thwarted

The Supreme Court, resting on prior precedent, determined the phrases "left in the care of another," and "without provision for the child's support," were being misinterpreted and misapplied by many, including some district court judges. The Court ruled that if a court in a divorce decree or other child custody order gives one parent physical custody of the child and the second parent visitation, and if the second parent does not exercise his or her visitation rights, thereby completely removing him/herself from that child's life, it is not leaving the child in the care of another, because the district court ordered the first parent to have physical custody. Likewise, if there is a support order in place, even if the parent is not paying the child support, it is sufficient to meet the provision for support language in the statute. Specifically, the Court stated:

The facts in this case indicate that the two minor children were placed in the custody of [mother] by the court that granted the divorce. The children were not left in [mother]'s care by [father]. Further, the same order that placed the children in [mother]'s custody also provided for their support by ordering [father] to make monthly support payments. In view of those facts, the fact that [father]...