Wyoming Supreme Court

In the Matter of Parental Rights of Gp, Jp and Sp. Lp, Appellant (respondent) v. Natrona County Department Of…

March 22, 19841984 Wyo. LEXIS 269

Summary

The court affirmed termination of LP’s parental rights to all three children, concluding that the statutory grounds were established by clear and convincing evidence. It found no reversible error in the denial of a jury trial, public funds for a medical examination, or admission of most challenged evidence; it held that GP’s hearsay accusation was inadmissible but could not be considered in deciding the appeal. The remaining evidence established abuse or imminent danger, unsuccessful rehabilitation, and serious jeopardy to each child’s health and safety if returned to LP.

Holding

  • Jury trial: statutory entitlement, waiver, and discretionary relief. A parent has a statutory right to demand a jury trial in a parental-rights-termination action, but LP waived that right by failing to serve the demand and deposit the required fee. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing a jury trial under Rule 39(b), and neither the Wyoming nor federal Constitution guarantees a jury trial in this civil proceeding.
  • Publicly funded medical examination of GP. The district court did not err by denying public funds for the requested examination because an intact hymen would not have excluded LP from having committed sexual intercourse as that term is defined by law.
  • Evidence concerning DPASS’s internal review procedures. The district court properly excluded testimony about DPASS’s failure to follow review provisions in the Social Services Manual because the manual provision was a guideline, not a duly promulgated rule binding the county agency, and the evidence was not relevant to the termination proceeding.
  • Children’s State Home records. The Children’s Home records were admissible under the business-records exception to show that the children made the recorded statements, but they were not admissible to prove the truth of those statements unless another hearsay exception applied. Missing portions and the absence of formal rules governing the notations affected weight rather than admissibility, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the available records.
  • GP’s accusation to a Children’s Home employee. The residual hearsay exception did not permit admission of GP’s accusation that LP had sexual intercourse with her because the statement lacked circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. The statement could not properly be considered in terminating LP’s parental rights with respect to GP.
  • JP’s statements to a deputy prosecutor and foster parent. JP’s statements that he saw LP fondle GP and that LP encouraged him to touch SP and LP’s wife were properly admitted under the residual hearsay exception.

Docket C-83-5

Cited authorities

  • Rule 39(b)
  • Rule 38(b)(3)
  • Rule 38(b)(1)
  • Rule 38(b)(1)
  • Rule 38(b)(1)
  • Rule 38(b)(3)
  • Rule 38(d)
  • Rule 5(d)

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF