ANOL v. State, Dep’t of Family Servs.

Annotate this Case

The district court entered an order terminating the parental rights of Appellant, concluding that there was clear and convincing evidence to support three statutory grounds for termination of Appellant’s parental rights. Appellant appealed. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The Supreme Court then entered an order granting Appellant a motion for extension of time to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. The Court subsequently granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and the district court’s order terminating the parental rights of Appellant.

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 124 April Term, A.D. 2015 September 16, 2015 IN THE MATTER OF THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: SSO, a minor child, ANOL, aka ANO, Appellant (Respondent), S-15-0135 v. STATE OF WYOMING, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES, Appellee (Petitioner). ORDER AFFIRMING THE DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS [¶1] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief within the time allotted by this Court. Appellant filed this appeal to challenge the district court’s March 13, 2015, “Order Terminating Parental Rights of [ANOL]….” In that order, the district court concluded there was clear and convincing evidence to support three statutory grounds for termination of Appellant’s parental rights: (1) the child has been neglected by Appellant, reasonable efforts were unsuccessful in rehabilitating the family, and the child’s health and safety would be seriously jeopardized if returned to Appellant; (2) Appellant is incarcerated on a felony and unfit; and (3) the child was in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months and Appellant is unfit. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-309(a)(iii),(iv), & (v). [¶2] On July 14, 2015, Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel,” pursuant to NRL v. State (In re NRL), 2015 WY 27, ¶ 3, 344 P.3d 759, 760 (Wyo. 2015). There, this Court announced it would permit Anders-type briefs in appeals challenging termination of parental rights. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The next day, this Court entered an “Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief.” This Court ordered that, on or before September 3, 2015, Appellant “may file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the issues she would like this Court to consider in this appeal.” This Court also provided notice that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would “make its ruling on counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.” This Court notes that Appellant has not filed a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted. [¶3] Now, following review of the record and the “Anders brief” submitted by appellate counsel, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be granted and the district court’s “Order Terminating Parental Rights of [ANOL]….” should be affirmed. It is, therefore, [¶4] ORDERED that Kenneth DeCock, court-appointed counsel for Appellant, is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for Appellant; and it is further [¶5] ORDERED that the district court’s March 13, 2015, “Order Terminating Parental Rights of [ANOL]….” be, and the same hereby is, affirmed. [¶6] DATED this 16th day of September, 2015. BY THE COURT: /s/ E. JAMES BURKE Chief Justice

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.