In the Interest of: BFW, a Minor Child, DW and KW v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

In the Interest of: BFW, a Minor Child, DW and KW v. State

2017 WY 64, 395 P.3d 184, 2017 WL 2376542, 2017 Wyo. LEXIS 63

CourtWyoming Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 2017

DocketS-16-0224

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2017 WY 64 (In the Interest of: BFW, a Minor Child, DW and KW v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of: BFW, a Minor Child, DW and KW v. State, 2017 WY 64, 395 P.3d 184, 2017 WL 2376542, 2017 Wyo. LEXIS 63 (Wyo. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

DAVIS, Justice.

[¶1] Appellants DW and KW challenge an adjudication which determined that they neglected their minor child. However, they have not adhered to the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure because they have failed to present cogent argument or pertinent authority to support their claims of error as to issues they raise. Accordingly, we summarily affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Appellants present several issues attempting to assert errors claimed to have been committed by the juvenile court. However, the issues are unintelligible at best, as *185 they are uncoupled to any cogent argument or pertinent authority.

FACTS

[¶3] The county attorney filed a juvenile petition alleging Appellant’s minor child had been neglected as defined under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(xii)(A) and (B). The proceeding eventually made its way to trial, and a jury found that Appellants had indeed neglected their child. 1 Based upon these findings, the juvenile court adjudged Appellants’ child to be neglected under the Child Protection Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-401 et seq.

[¶4] Appellants timely perfected their appeal, and the case was subsequently docketed with this Court. The day that the case was docketed, the clerk of this Court provided notice to Appellants and other parties as to the briefing schedule. The schedule clearly advised that Appellants had 45 days after service of the notice to file their brief. Unfortunately, Appellants failed to timely file their brief, and this Court entered an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to W.R.A.P. 7.11. Appellants then filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to W.R.A.P. 15, which this Court subsequently granted after finding excusable neglect.

DISCUSSION

[¶5] The longstanding rule of this Court is to summarily affirm “cases or issues in eases that are not presented with cogent argument or pertinent authority.” Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 87 (Wyo.1995); see also Small v. Convenience Plus Partners, Ltd., 6 P.3d 1254, 1256 (Wyo.2000) (summarily affirming for lack of cogent argument); State ex rel. Reece v. Wyoming State Bd. of Outfitters & Prof'l Guides, 931 P.2d 958, 959 (Wyo. 1997) (“Appellant’s brief fails to comply with rules of appellate procedure and is void of cogent argument or legal authority, thus depriving him of his requested relief.”).

[¶6] We have carefully reviewed Appellants’ brief, and uncovered no cogent argument supported by legal authority. Consequently, we must summarily affirm the Order on Adjudicated Hearing entered by the district court.

[¶7] Affirmed.

1

. The jury, however, found the allegations of abuse against both parents to be untrue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAVIS, Justice.

[¶1] Appellants DW and KW challenge an adjudication which determined that they neglected their minor child. However, they have not adhered to the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure because they have failed to present cogent argument or pertinent authority to support their claims of error as to issues they raise. Accordingly, we summarily affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] Appellants present several issues attempting to assert errors claimed to have been committed by the juvenile court. However, the issues are unintelligible at best, as *185 they are uncoupled to any cogent argument or pertinent authority.

FACTS

[¶3] The county attorney filed a juvenile petition alleging Appellant’s minor child had been neglected as defined under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-402(a)(xii)(A) and (B). The proceeding eventually made its way to trial, and a jury found that Appellants had indeed neglected their child. 1 Based upon these findings, the juvenile court adjudged Appellants’ child to be neglected under the Child Protection Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-401 et seq.

[¶4] Appellants timely perfected their appeal, and the case was subsequently docketed with this Court. The day that the case was docketed, the clerk of this Court provided notice to Appellants and other parties as to the briefing schedule. The schedule clearly advised that Appellants had 45 days after service of the notice to file their brief. Unfortunately, Appellants failed to timely file their brief, and this Court entered an order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution pursuant to W.R.A.P. 7.11. Appellants then filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to W.R.A.P. 15, which this Court subsequently granted after finding excusable neglect.

DISCUSSION

[¶5] The longstanding rule of this Court is to summarily affirm “cases or issues in eases that are not presented with cogent argument or pertinent authority.” Hamburg v. Heilbrun, 891 P.2d 85, 87 (Wyo.1995); see also Small v. Convenience Plus Partners, Ltd., 6 P.3d 1254, 1256 (Wyo.2000) (summarily affirming for lack of cogent argument); State ex rel. Reece v. Wyoming State Bd. of Outfitters & Prof'l Guides, 931 P.2d 958, 959 (Wyo. 1997) (“Appellant’s brief fails to comply with rules of appellate procedure and is void of cogent argument or legal authority, thus depriving him of his requested relief.”).

[¶6] We have carefully reviewed Appellants’ brief, and uncovered no cogent argument supported by legal authority. Consequently, we must summarily affirm the Order on Adjudicated Hearing entered by the district court.

[¶7] Affirmed.

1

. The jury, however, found the allegations of abuse against both parents to be untrue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 WY 64, 395 P.3d 184, 2017 WL 2376542, 2017 Wyo. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-bfw-a-minor-child-dw-and-kw-v-state-wyo-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack