## Facts

- In May 2013, police responded to a report that two-year-old GC was wandering alone on a busy street.
- GC’s mother, KC, told officers she was staying with friends she could not name and said she could not authorize officers to check the home’s living conditions.
- GC was taken into protective custody, and the State (through the Department of Family Services (DFS)) filed a petition alleging KC neglected GC.
- GC was placed in the State’s custody while the neglect case proceeded.
- The neglect adjudication was initially held in abeyance to allow KC time to complete a DFS case plan that included a psychological evaluation, substance-abuse testing and counseling, urinalysis (UA) testing, and obtaining stable housing and employment.
- KC initially complied with parts of the case plan and continued visiting GC, but by August 2013 she had two UAs that were positive for drugs and her cooperation began to diminish.
- In November 2013, KC again tested positive for drugs on the same day she had an overnight visit with GC.
- Before December 2013, KC failed to appear for UA testing on five occasions and, on three other occasions, appeared but did not complete the test.
- In December 2013, the State moved forward with the neglect case. The juvenile court adjudicated GC neglected, but the permanency goal remained reunification at that time.
- By April 2014, KC continued to have positive and missed UAs, missed mental-health appointments, and had no consistent employment.
- In May 2014, DFS changed its permanency recommendation to adoption. KC objected and asked the State to conduct hair-follicle testing, asserting problems with the UA testing process.
- The State moved to terminate KC’s parental rights.
- At the June 2014 permanency hearing, neither the State nor KC presented live testimony or other evidence; the State relied primarily on DFS “team reports,” which summarized KC’s case-plan compliance and referenced drug-testing information.
- The juvenile court concluded DFS had made reasonable efforts toward reunification, ceased further reunification efforts, and changed the permanency plan from reunification to adoption, finding the change was in GC’s best interests.
- KC appealed, arguing that the team reports were hearsay and that reliance on them violated the Wyoming Rules of Evidence and due process.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile court erred, or violated due process, by admitting and relying on DFS team reports containing hearsay at a permanency hearing changing the plan from reunification to adoption.
2. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding the State made reasonable reunification efforts and in changing the permanency plan from reunification to adoption.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s permanency order.
- The Court held that the juvenile court could consider DFS team reports at a permanency hearing; such hearings are governed by the juvenile statutory scheme and contemplated procedures, not full trial-type evidence rules.
- The Court rejected KC’s due process challenge because the process provided notice and an opportunity to contest the information; KC could have sought witnesses or other proof but proceeded without presenting evidence.
- The Court held the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding reasonable efforts had been made and that changing the permanency goal to adoption was supported by KC’s continued drug use, missed testing, missed appointments, and lack of stability.

## Legal Principles

- Review and permanency hearings in juvenile neglect cases are conducted under the procedures set out in Wyoming’s juvenile code, which contemplates the court’s consideration of written reports (including DFS reports) to assess the child’s status and permanency planning.
- The Wyoming Rules of Evidence do not apply in the same way at permanency hearings as they do at adjudication or termination trials; the court may consider report-based information in deciding permanency and reasonable-efforts questions.
- Due process in permanency proceedings requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, not necessarily live testimony and cross-examination in every case; a parent may challenge report contents by presenting evidence, requesting witnesses, or using available court processes.
- A juvenile court’s determinations regarding reasonable reunification efforts and permanency-goal changes are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are guided by the child’s best interests and the parent’s progress (or lack of progress) on the case plan.
- A permanency-goal change to adoption does not itself terminate parental rights; termination requires a separate proceeding with a higher proof standard, but permanency planning may proceed when reunification efforts have not succeeded.

## Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the juvenile court’s decision to cease reunification efforts and change GC’s permanency plan from reunification to adoption because the juvenile framework allowed reliance on DFS team reports at a permanency hearing, KC had an adequate opportunity to contest the information, and the record supported the court’s findings that reasonable efforts had been made and adoption served GC’s best interests.


KC v. State, 351 P.3d 236 (2015)