Summary
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile court order continuing physical custody of a minor child with her maternal grandparents and legal custody with the Department of Family Services. The court summarily affirmed because the appellant failed to comply with appellate briefing requirements and failed to present a cogent argument supported by pertinent authority.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the appeal should be considered when the pro se appellant failed to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01.
- Whether the juvenile court's custody and case-plan order should be affirmed despite the appellant's failure to present a cogent argument supported by pertinent authority.
Holdings
- A pro se litigant is generally required to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure, and failure to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01 may justify refusal to consider the appellant's contentions or affirmance of the lower-court order.
- The court will not consider an appeal when the appellant's brief fails to present a cogent argument supported by pertinent authority, regardless of whether the appellant is proceeding pro se or is represented by licensed counsel.
Key quotations
“Although some allowances are made for pro se litigants, this court expects them to comply with the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure just as we require trained lawyers to do.” (¶ 7)
“These requirements are not meaningless obstacles to a review by this court of a given case but rather are necessary to drafting an organized, thoughtful, and analytical opinion on well defined issues.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
KD was placed in protective custody after her mother was arrested and later remained in the care of her maternal grandparents while legal custody was held by the Department of Family Services. MTM asserted that he was KD's biological father, but he failed a required home study. The juvenile court ordered MTM to comply with a case plan involving child-support payments and counseling intended to improve his parenting skills and relationship with KD.
Procedural history
The juvenile court continued custody with the Department of Family Services and the maternal grandparents and ordered MTM to sign and comply with a case plan. MTM appealed, but the Wyoming Supreme Court summarily affirmed because his appellate brief failed to comply with W.R.A.P. 7.01 and did not present a cogent argument supported by pertinent authority.