GUTHRIE, District Judge.
[T1] Appellant, State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (DFS), appeals an order entered in juvenile court requiring DFS to pay for an out-of-state placement for a juvenile adjudged delinquent under the Juvenile Justice Act. We affirm.
ISSUE
[12] DFS states the issue as:
Did the juvenile court exceed its statutory authority when it ordered the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services to pay for a private out-of-state placement?
FACTS
[18] DCP is a minor child born April 26, 1988. Appellee, KP, adopted DCP when he was approximately five years old. In September of 1999, DCP performed acts of delinquency. In November of 1999, KP placed DCP in a residential treatment program in Evanston, Wyoming, the Youth Alternative Home Association (YAHA).
[14] A petition alleging that DCP was delinquent was filed on December 1, 1999. The initial hearing was held on December 10, 1999. Present at this hearing was DCP, KP, KP's attorney, a DFS representative, a YAHA representative and the Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney. DCP admitted all the allegations in the petition. Two orders were generated as a result of the initial hearing. The first order was signed by the district court commissioner on December 22, 1999. The second order was signed by the juvenile court judge on January 21, 2000 and was based upon a Court Commissioner's Resume signed by the Court Commissioner on January 20, 2000. In both orders, constructive custody of DCP was placed with the Tinta County Sheriff's Department. In the first order, physical custody of DCP was placed with KP for placement at YAHA and legal custody with KP. The second order placed physical custody of DCP with YAHA and legal custody with DFS. A dispositional hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2000.
[15] On January 19, 2000, DCP was released by YAHA to KP. The next day, KP moved DCP to a residential treatment program at Primary Children's Hospital in Utah.
[16] After two continuances, a disposi-tional hearing was held on April 12, 2000. No one appeared on behalf of DFS at this hearing. The juvenile court entered an order that contained no terms of disposition for DCP. The juvenile court only ordered KP to pay for the cost of DCP's placement at Primary Children's Hospital from the date of his admission until January 26, 2000. After that date, DFS was required to pay all costs not covered by KP's insurance. DFS timely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[T7] All proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act are regarded as being in equity and this Court shall exercise equitable jurisdiction. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-2838 (LexisNexis 2001). This appeal involves a question of law requiring statutory interpretation. Conclusions of law are reviewed de movo. In re NG, 14 P.3d 203, 205 (Wyo. 2000).
DISCUSSION
[T8] DFS contends that the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority when it ordered DFS to pay for a private out-of-state placement. The statutes at issue provide, in pertinent part:
[31]*31(a) In determining the disposition to be made under this act in regard to any child:
(v) The court shall not order an out-of-state placement unless:
(A) Evidence has been presented to the court regarding the costs of the out-of-state placement being ordered together with evidence of the comparative costs of any suitable alternative in-state treatment program or facility, as determined by the department pursuant to W.S. 21-18-315(d)(vii), whether or not placement in the in-state program or facility is currently available;
(B) The court makes an affirmative finding on the record that no placement can be made in a Wyoming institution or in a private residential treatment facility or group home located in Wyoming that can provide adequate treatment or services for the child; and
(C) The court states on the record why no in-state placement is available.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-229(a)(v) (LexisNex-is 2001). This section references Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-18-315(d)(vii) (LexisNexis 2001), which provides:
(d) If a placement of a child is to be made and funded under this section, the predisposition study required by W.S. 14-6-227 shall include:
(vil) If an out-of-state placement is under consideration, the name, address, program description and costs of each Wyoming institution and each private residential treatment facility and group home located in Wyoming that the department of family services has determined can provide adequate treatment or services for the child, and whether placement in the in-state institution, treatment facility or group home is available. -
[19] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-229 authorizes the juvenile court to order the out-of-state placement of a juvenile adjudged delinquent as part of the juvenile's disposition only if certain procedures are followed. The Juvenile court's order following the disposi-tional hearing did not specifically order out-of-state placement nor did it specifically include the findings required by statute. DCP was placed at the out-of-state facility by his mother before the dispositional hearing.
[110] DFS argues that the statutory requirements for out-of-state placement were not followed; therefore, the juvenile court did not have the authority to require DFS to pay for the treatment. KP, on the other hand, argues that the May 11, 2000 order following the dispositional hearing meets the requirements of a court-ordered placement of DCP. KP seems to be arguing that since the May 11, 2000 order requires DFS to pay the costs of the treatment, the juvenile court was in effect ratifying the actions of KP in placing DCP in the out-of-state facility and ordering that DCP remain there. KP argues that nothing in the statute requires an out-of-state placement order be made prior to placement.
[T 11] KP also asserts that the other statutory requirements for out-of-state placement have been met. KP points to portions of the record where costs of out-of-state placement were presented to the juvenile court along with comparative costs of Wyoming placement provided by DFS.
[112] In In re NG, 14 P.3d 203, DFS appealed an order by a juvenile court requiring it to pay for electronic monitoring services provided by a private company for a minor child in a child-in-need-of-supervision (CHINS) case. There, when the CHINS petition was filed, the minor was on probation through the municipal court and was wearing an electronic monitor provided by a private company and paid for by the municipal court. Id. at 204. Prior to arraignment on the CHIN case, the minor, her mother and DFS agreed to a "CHINS CASE PLAN." The plan acknowledged that NG was on probation and wearing an electronic monitor. Subsequently, the DFS worker wrote a letter to the assistant district attorney and attached the case plan. The letter indicated the court date had been cancelled because they were in agreement to follow the case plan. Id. at 205.
[32]*32[{13] In September of 1998, the DFS worker recommended that electronic monitoring be discontinued.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
GUTHRIE, District Judge.
[T1] Appellant, State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services (DFS), appeals an order entered in juvenile court requiring DFS to pay for an out-of-state placement for a juvenile adjudged delinquent under the Juvenile Justice Act. We affirm.
ISSUE
[12] DFS states the issue as:
Did the juvenile court exceed its statutory authority when it ordered the State of Wyoming, Department of Family Services to pay for a private out-of-state placement?
FACTS
[18] DCP is a minor child born April 26, 1988. Appellee, KP, adopted DCP when he was approximately five years old. In September of 1999, DCP performed acts of delinquency. In November of 1999, KP placed DCP in a residential treatment program in Evanston, Wyoming, the Youth Alternative Home Association (YAHA).
[14] A petition alleging that DCP was delinquent was filed on December 1, 1999. The initial hearing was held on December 10, 1999. Present at this hearing was DCP, KP, KP's attorney, a DFS representative, a YAHA representative and the Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney. DCP admitted all the allegations in the petition. Two orders were generated as a result of the initial hearing. The first order was signed by the district court commissioner on December 22, 1999. The second order was signed by the juvenile court judge on January 21, 2000 and was based upon a Court Commissioner's Resume signed by the Court Commissioner on January 20, 2000. In both orders, constructive custody of DCP was placed with the Tinta County Sheriff's Department. In the first order, physical custody of DCP was placed with KP for placement at YAHA and legal custody with KP. The second order placed physical custody of DCP with YAHA and legal custody with DFS. A dispositional hearing was scheduled for January 26, 2000.
[15] On January 19, 2000, DCP was released by YAHA to KP. The next day, KP moved DCP to a residential treatment program at Primary Children's Hospital in Utah.
[16] After two continuances, a disposi-tional hearing was held on April 12, 2000. No one appeared on behalf of DFS at this hearing. The juvenile court entered an order that contained no terms of disposition for DCP. The juvenile court only ordered KP to pay for the cost of DCP's placement at Primary Children's Hospital from the date of his admission until January 26, 2000. After that date, DFS was required to pay all costs not covered by KP's insurance. DFS timely appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[T7] All proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act are regarded as being in equity and this Court shall exercise equitable jurisdiction. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-2838 (LexisNexis 2001). This appeal involves a question of law requiring statutory interpretation. Conclusions of law are reviewed de movo. In re NG, 14 P.3d 203, 205 (Wyo. 2000).
DISCUSSION
[T8] DFS contends that the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority when it ordered DFS to pay for a private out-of-state placement. The statutes at issue provide, in pertinent part:
[31]*31(a) In determining the disposition to be made under this act in regard to any child:
(v) The court shall not order an out-of-state placement unless:
(A) Evidence has been presented to the court regarding the costs of the out-of-state placement being ordered together with evidence of the comparative costs of any suitable alternative in-state treatment program or facility, as determined by the department pursuant to W.S. 21-18-315(d)(vii), whether or not placement in the in-state program or facility is currently available;
(B) The court makes an affirmative finding on the record that no placement can be made in a Wyoming institution or in a private residential treatment facility or group home located in Wyoming that can provide adequate treatment or services for the child; and
(C) The court states on the record why no in-state placement is available.
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-229(a)(v) (LexisNex-is 2001). This section references Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 21-18-315(d)(vii) (LexisNexis 2001), which provides:
(d) If a placement of a child is to be made and funded under this section, the predisposition study required by W.S. 14-6-227 shall include:
(vil) If an out-of-state placement is under consideration, the name, address, program description and costs of each Wyoming institution and each private residential treatment facility and group home located in Wyoming that the department of family services has determined can provide adequate treatment or services for the child, and whether placement in the in-state institution, treatment facility or group home is available. -
[19] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-229 authorizes the juvenile court to order the out-of-state placement of a juvenile adjudged delinquent as part of the juvenile's disposition only if certain procedures are followed. The Juvenile court's order following the disposi-tional hearing did not specifically order out-of-state placement nor did it specifically include the findings required by statute. DCP was placed at the out-of-state facility by his mother before the dispositional hearing.
[110] DFS argues that the statutory requirements for out-of-state placement were not followed; therefore, the juvenile court did not have the authority to require DFS to pay for the treatment. KP, on the other hand, argues that the May 11, 2000 order following the dispositional hearing meets the requirements of a court-ordered placement of DCP. KP seems to be arguing that since the May 11, 2000 order requires DFS to pay the costs of the treatment, the juvenile court was in effect ratifying the actions of KP in placing DCP in the out-of-state facility and ordering that DCP remain there. KP argues that nothing in the statute requires an out-of-state placement order be made prior to placement.
[T 11] KP also asserts that the other statutory requirements for out-of-state placement have been met. KP points to portions of the record where costs of out-of-state placement were presented to the juvenile court along with comparative costs of Wyoming placement provided by DFS.
[112] In In re NG, 14 P.3d 203, DFS appealed an order by a juvenile court requiring it to pay for electronic monitoring services provided by a private company for a minor child in a child-in-need-of-supervision (CHINS) case. There, when the CHINS petition was filed, the minor was on probation through the municipal court and was wearing an electronic monitor provided by a private company and paid for by the municipal court. Id. at 204. Prior to arraignment on the CHIN case, the minor, her mother and DFS agreed to a "CHINS CASE PLAN." The plan acknowledged that NG was on probation and wearing an electronic monitor. Subsequently, the DFS worker wrote a letter to the assistant district attorney and attached the case plan. The letter indicated the court date had been cancelled because they were in agreement to follow the case plan. Id. at 205.
[32]*32[{13] In September of 1998, the DFS worker recommended that electronic monitoring be discontinued. At NG's arraignment in October of 1998, NG admitted the allegations in the petition and the juvenile court discontinued the electronic monitoring. In November of 1998, the juvenile court found that the electronic monitoring services were reasonable and in the best interest of the minor. for the monitoring services. Id. The court ordered DFS to pay |
[114] Similar to the arguments here, DFS argued in Im re NG that the court lacked the statutory authority to order DFS to pay for services such as electronic monitoring. Id. DFS argued that its duties in CHINS cases are explicitly defined by statute. Id. This Court took an equitable approach. "The purpose of the law is to promote the best interests of the children. DFS and the juvenile court must work together to that end. To accomplish this task, it is nee-essary for both the agency and the court to have somewhat more flexibility than DFS would concede." Id. This Court also held that "lilt is not reasonable to expect the legislature to foresee every method that might be employed to assist a juvenile." Id.
[1 15] The important similarity is that the electronic monitoring services were never explicitly ordered by the juvenile court in the CHINS case. Justice Golden dissented in In re NG, arguing that "DFS should only be responsible for payment of electronic monitoring services when ordered by a juvenile court or required by the CHINS statutory framework."Id. at 206 (Golden, J., dissent ing). Justice Golden noted that the monitoring took place prior to the juvenile court having jurisdiction and the court took no action "indicating the monitoring services were required, and did not order electronic monitoring services nor approve the services as part of a consent decree." Id. "We should not require DFS pay for juvenile services that have not resulted from a juvenile court order * * *." Id.
[116] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-229(a)(v) states that "[tlhe court shall not order an out-of-state placement" unless certain evidence is presented and the district court makes affirmative findings on the record. "Where a statute uses the mandatory language 'shall, a court must obey the statute as a court has no right to make the law contrary to what is prescribed by the legislature." In re LePage, 2001 WY 26, 111, 18 P.3d 1177, 1180 (Wyo.2001).
[117] We must also keep in mind our longstanding principle that the exercise of equitable jurisdiction may not prevail over statutory language. In In re Hartt's Estate, 75 Wyo. 305, 295 P.2d 985, 991 (1956), this court stated that, when invoking equitable jurisdiction, "mandatory statutes must be obeyed and * * * courts have no right to make a law contrary to that prescribed by the legislature." Similarly, "courts of equity are powerless to vary the direct mandate of legislative enactments as are courts of law * * *." Jy ro Harit's Estate, 295 P.2d at 996. In sum, "[elquity follows the law." Brewer v. Folsom Brothers Co., 43 Wyo. 438, 5 P.2d 283, 290 (1931).
[T18] Upon careful examination of the facts that appear in the record, we conclude the statutory framework of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-6-229(a)(v) has been substantially adhered to in the instant case. Although the juvenile court did not provide an order prior to DCP's out-of-state placement, there is no statutory language which necessitates that the applicable requirements be met prior to placement. A review of the record makes it clear that comparative costs of placement in Wyoming as well as the costs of the out-of-state placement were presented to the juvenile court. In addition, there was a discussion at the hearing based upon the recommendations of Primary Children's Hospital that it was important for KP to play an active role in DCP's treatment. KP would not have been sufficiently involved at the instate proposed treatment facilities due to their location, thus affecting the availability of those facilities.
[119] We assume the juvenile court made a careful review of the entire record, and we conclude the juvenile court had sufficient information to properly require DFS to pay for the out-of-state placement of DCP. In this case, we conclude there was a clear indication that the out-of-state placement effectuated [33]*33the protection of public safety and provided for the care, protection, and mental and physical development of DCP. Wyo. Stat. Ann, § 14-6-201(c)(ii), (iii) (LexisNexis 2001). The interests of judicial economy will not be served by a remand in this case so that the juvenile court's findings can be placed on the record. However, in the future, we require affirmative findings to be placed on the record in accordance with the mandatory language in the applicable statutes,. This will allow this Court to properly review a juvenile court's decision to assure a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors was completed.
[120] The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.