Skip to main content

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parental Rights To: E.R.C.K., Minor Child, V.L.K. v. State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services

Wyo.December 24, 2013No. S-13-0091Cited 16 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Kite, Hill, Voigt, Burke, Davis
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Family law matter regarding termination of parental rights

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Case concerning termination of parental rights to minor child E.R.C.K. A family law matter involving the State of Wyoming Department of Family Services.

Similar Rulings

In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: Bar, Minor Child, Heather Dawn Ritchie v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Family Services
Wyo.Jan 2026
Unresolvable
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: Tjh, Minor Child, Christine Dawn Herden v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Family Services
Wyo.Apr 2021
Defendant Win
In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights to: NRAE, a minor child, Cody John Niland v. State of Wyoming, ex rel. Department of Family Services
Wyo.Sep 2020
Plaintiff Win
In Re Gabriella D.
Tenn.Sep 2017

The Tennessee Department of Children's Services ("DCS") removed three children from the custody of their parents and placed them with foster parents in March 2012 because one of the children, an infant, was severely malnourished. By July 2012, the children's mother was cooperating with DCS and complying with a permanency plan that set the goal for the children as reunification with their mother or another relative. The mother continued to comply with the permanency plan for the next sixteen months that the children were in foster care. On the day the children were scheduled to begin a trial home visit with the mother, July 31, 2013, the foster parents filed a petition in circuit court seeking to terminate the mother's parental rights and to adopt the children. After the foster parents filed their petition in circuit court, the juvenile court, which had maintained jurisdiction over the dependency and neglect proceeding, ordered DCS to place the children with the mother for the trial home visit. The circuit court trial on the foster parents' petition did not occur until September 2015. By that time, the children had resided with the mother on a trial basis for two years without incident. The mother, DCS, and the guardian ad litem appointed by the juvenile court in the dependency and neglect proceeding opposed the foster parents' petition. The foster parents and a guardian ad litem appointed by the circuit court sought termination of the mother's parental rights. After the multi-day trial, the trial court dismissed the petition, finding that the foster parents had proven a ground for termination by clear and convincing proof but had failed to establish by clear and convincing proof that termination is in the children's best interests. The foster parents appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. We granted the mother's application for permission to appeal and now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court's judgment dismissing the fost

Plaintiff Win
In Re Addalyne S.
Tenn. Ct. App.Apr 2018

In this parental termination case, maternal Grandparents sought termination of both Mother's and Father's rights on the grounds of: (1) abandonment by willful failure to support and (2) abandonment by willful failure to visit. The trial court found no grounds for termination as to Mother and only one ground—failure to support—as to Father. The trial court however found that it was not in the child's best interest to terminate Father's rights. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.