permanency hearing in Wyoming

2015Id., 94 P.3d at 806 .

2011As we previously determined in HP, ¶ 25, 93 P.3d at 989 , we review the juvenile court's findings "under the preponderance of the evidence standard that is applicable to neglect proceedings." Further, Appellant's right to familial association does not demand application of a clear and convincing evidentiary standard because this is not an appeal from a termination of Appellant's parental rights.

2026See In re LH, ¶ 33, 565 P.3d 683, 691 (finding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption when Mother failed to make sufficient progress on the goals of her case plan, in particular, her sobriety, finding a safe and stable place to live, and obtaining steady employment); In re JN, ¶¶ 25–27, 556 P.3d at 756 (finding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption when Mother failed to make sufficient progress on the goals of her case plan, in particular, her sobriety); and In re LC, 2025 WY 105, ¶ 20 ,

2026See In re LH, ¶ 33, 565 P.3d 683, 691 (finding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption when Mother failed to make sufficient progress on the goals of her case plan, in particular, her sobriety, finding a safe and stable place to live, and obtaining steady employment); In re JN, ¶¶ 25–27, 556 P.3d at 756 (finding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in changing the permanency plan to adoption when Mother failed to make sufficient progress on the goals of her case plan, in particular, her sobriety); and In re LC, 2025 WY 105, ¶ 20 ,

2023In ECH, the father was unable to physically attend a permanency hearing because he was incarcerated. 2018 WY 83 , ¶¶ 18–19, 423 P.3d at 301 .

2021In fact, the provision the State relied upon when requesting the juvenile court relieve DFS of the duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify Father with Child is included within § 14-2-309 – the statute setting out the procedure for termination of parental rights. [¶13] We ruled in FH, ¶ 21, 423 P.3d at 302 , the “right to counsel in a permanency hearing where cessation of reunification efforts has been recommended is a matter of such fundamental nature that we must consider it even though it was not raised below.” Given the close connection between procedures required in the early stages of

2015Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court recounted,, "'(d)ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and cireumstances.... [It] is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). [T40] In Maria C.

2015Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court recounted,, "'(d)ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and cireumstances.... [It] is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). [T40] In Maria C.

2023TJH, 2021 WY 56 , ¶¶ 14–22, 485 P.3d at 413–16. [¶14] Here we are considering a termination hearing rather than a permanency hearing, and Mother’s absence was of her own making rather than the result of incarceration.

2023TJH, 2021 WY 56 , ¶¶ 14–22, 485 P.3d at 413–16. [¶14] Here we are considering a termination hearing rather than a permanency hearing, and Mother’s absence was of her own making rather than the result of incarceration.

2022The court set the hearing for September 18, but, in response to two separate requests from Mother, continued it to November 25, 2020 and then to January 13, 2021. 6 STANDARD OF REVIEW [¶25] To change a permanency plan “from family reunification to adoption, a juvenile court must find that [the Department] made reasonable efforts to achieve reunification without success and that reunification is no longer in the children’s best interest.” Interest of RR, 2021 WY 85, ¶ 97 , 492 P.3d 246, 270 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Interest of SW, 2021 WY 81, ¶ 17 , 491 P.3d 264 , 269 (Wyo. 2021)).

2018"When determining whether material prejudice is present, we review the evidence in light of the entire record." Mersereau v. State , 2012 WY 125 , ¶ 53, 286 P.3d 97 , 118 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Pendleton v. State , 2008 WY 36 , ¶ 11, 180 P.3d 212 , 216 (Wyo. 2008) ). [¶34] The State asserts that, had Father been advised of his right to counsel and had the court appointed counsel immediately following his first request, the outcome would not have been more favorable because Father had counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding (i.e., the permanency hearing), he participated in MDT meetings a

2018"When determining whether material prejudice is present, we review the evidence in light of the entire record." Mersereau v. State , 2012 WY 125 , ¶ 53, 286 P.3d 97 , 118 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Pendleton v. State , 2008 WY 36 , ¶ 11, 180 P.3d 212 , 216 (Wyo. 2008) ). [¶34] The State asserts that, had Father been advised of his right to counsel and had the court appointed counsel immediately following his first request, the outcome would not have been more favorable because Father had counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding (i.e., the permanency hearing), he participated in MDT meetings a

2018"When determining whether material prejudice is present, we review the evidence in light of the entire record." Mersereau v. State , 2012 WY 125 , ¶ 53, 286 P.3d 97 , 118 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Pendleton v. State , 2008 WY 36 , ¶ 11, 180 P.3d 212 , 216 (Wyo. 2008) ). [¶34] The State asserts that, had Father been advised of his right to counsel and had the court appointed counsel immediately following his first request, the outcome would not have been more favorable because Father had counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding (i.e., the permanency hearing), he participated in MDT meetings a

2018"When determining whether material prejudice is present, we review the evidence in light of the entire record." Mersereau v. State , 2012 WY 125 , ¶ 53, 286 P.3d 97 , 118 (Wyo. 2012) (citing Pendleton v. State , 2008 WY 36 , ¶ 11, 180 P.3d 212 , 216 (Wyo. 2008) ). [¶34] The State asserts that, had Father been advised of his right to counsel and had the court appointed counsel immediately following his first request, the outcome would not have been more favorable because Father had counsel at all critical stages of the proceeding (i.e., the permanency hearing), he participated in MDT meetings a

2018However, Father did not raise this issue below or, in any way, object to the procedure employed by the juvenile court at the permanency hearing. 1 Normally, we will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal, In re AGS , 2014 WY 143 , ¶ 33, 337 P.3d 470 , 480 (Wyo. 2014), but we have recognized "two exceptions to this rule: when the issue *22 raises jurisdictional questions or when the issue is of such a fundamental nature that it must be considered.

2018However, Father did not raise this issue below or, in any way, object to the procedure employed by the juvenile court at the permanency hearing. 1 Normally, we will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal, In re AGS , 2014 WY 143 , ¶ 33, 337 P.3d 470 , 480 (Wyo. 2014), but we have recognized "two exceptions to this rule: when the issue *22 raises jurisdictional questions or when the issue is of such a fundamental nature that it must be considered.

2015Id., 94 P.3d at 806 .

2015That court concluded that "notice and the opportunity to participate in a permanency hearing would contribute to the overall fairness of the procedure by giving parents an opportunity to present their side of the story, prepare a defense if termination is in the offing, or avoid the TPR hearing altogether by having the case dismissed." Maria C., 94 P.3d at 807 .

2015Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court recounted,, "'(d)ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and cireumstances.... [It] is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). [T40] In Maria C.

2015Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court recounted,, "'(d)ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and cireumstances.... [It] is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). [T40] In Maria C.

2015Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court recounted,, "'(d)ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and cireumstances.... [It] is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). [T40] In Maria C.

2015Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court recounted,, "'(d)ue process, unlike some legal rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and cireumstances.... [It] is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citing Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895 , 81 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1230 (1961); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). [T40] In Maria C.

2010C.L. [ v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 2007 WY 23 ], ¶ 9, 151 P.3d [1102] at 1105; SLB [ v. JEO, 2006 WY 74 ], ¶ 7, 136 P.3d [797] at 799-800; TF v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 118, ¶ 15 , 120 P.3d 992, 1000 (Wyo.2005).

2010C.L. [v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 2007 WY 23 ], ¶ 9, 151 P.3d [1102] at 1105; SLB [v. JEO, 2006 WY 74 ], 17, 136 P.3d [797] at 799-800; TF v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 118, ¶ 15 , 120 P.3d 992, 1000 (Wyo.2005).

2010C.L. [ v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 2007 WY 23 ], ¶ 9, 151 P.3d [1102] at 1105; SLB [ v. JEO, 2006 WY 74 ], ¶ 7, 136 P.3d [797] at 799-800; TF v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 118, ¶ 15 , 120 P.3d 992, 1000 (Wyo.2005).

2010C.L. [v. Wyoming Dept. of Family Services, 2007 WY 23 ], ¶ 9, 151 P.3d [1102] at 1105; SLB [v. JEO, 2006 WY 74 ], 17, 136 P.3d [797] at 799-800; TF v. Dep't of Family Servs., 2005 WY 118, ¶ 15 , 120 P.3d 992, 1000 (Wyo.2005).