In re A.D.B., 370 Mont. 422

Background

A.D.B., born April 2009, was removed from parents’ custody after Mother’s substance abuse and Father’s arrest; DPHHS obtained temporary legal custody and court-approved treatment plans for both parents.
Father was convicted of mitigated deliberate homicide and sentenced to 40 years without parole in July 2010; DPHHS later filed to terminate his parental rights based on long-term incarceration.
Mother has a long history of chemical dependency (since age 13), multiple relapses, overdosed in Nov. 2011, and accrued new felony drug/theft convictions in early 2012; she repeatedly failed to complete court-ordered treatment tasks and missed drug tests.
Mother moved to amend her plan to require nine-month inpatient treatment at Elkhorn; DPHHS did not object but Mother was arrested soon after and had not entered Elkhorn before the termination hearing.
The District Court terminated both parents’ rights under § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, finding Mother unfit due to persistent addiction unlikely to change in a reasonable time and Father unfit due to long-term incarceration; parents and the child appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Were DPHHS’s reunification efforts reasonable?	Mother: Amending plan to Elkhorn meant DPHHS terminated prematurely.	State: DPHHS provided years of services; Mother repeatedly refused necessary treatment.	Held: DPHHS made reasonable efforts.
2. Was Mother unfit and unlikely to improve within a reasonable time?	Mother: No clear and convincing proof that Elkhorn would fail; termination was premature.	State: Long history of relapse, noncompliance, positive tests, and criminal conduct show low likelihood of change.	Held: Mother unfit; condition unlikely to change.
3. Did the court lack jurisdiction to terminate Father’s rights because temporary custody lapsed?	Father: Dispositional order expired Nov. 4, 2011, so court lost jurisdiction.	State: A timely extension petition was filed; jurisdiction is not lost by such timing; adjudication remained in effect.	Held: Court had jurisdiction.
4. Was Father’s counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss or object?	Father: Counsel should have moved to dismiss after alleged lapse or objected to adjudication.	State: Any such motion would be meritless; DPHHS could refile or proceed given incarceration.	Held: Counsel was effective; claim fails for lack of meritorious relief.
5. Was terminating Father’s rights based on incarceration improper because guardianship could preserve support?	Father: Guardianship would preserve support and parental obligations.	State: Long-term confinement and violent history render him unable to provide adequate care; minimal prison funds are insufficient.	Held: Termination was proper given violent offense and long-term confinement.
6. Was termination in child’s best interest?	Child’s counsel & Father: Better to wait for Mother’s inpatient treatment or use guardianship to preserve parental ties.	State: Child’s stability with grandparents and risk of further disruption outweigh remote possibility of parental reunification.	Held: Termination was in child’s best interest.

Key Cases Cited

In re E.Z.C., 370 Mont. 116, 300 P.3d 1174 (standard of review and parental-rights framework)
In re D.B., 339 Mont. 240, 168 P.3d 691 (treatment-plan analysis)
In re D.B., 366 Mont. 392, 288 P.3d 160 (treatment-plan appropriateness and change-in-conduct inquiry)
In re C.M.C., 350 Mont. 391, 208 P.3d 809 (predictive assessment using past conduct)
In re A.N., 298 Mont. 237, 995 P.2d 427 (burden to prove plan appropriate by clear and convincing evidence)
Miller v. Eighteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 337 Mont. 488, 162 P.3d 121 (subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Cringle, 359 Mont. 20, 247 P.3d 706 (legislative time limits do not strip jurisdiction)
In re M.N., 362 Mont. 186, 261 P.3d 1047 (children need not be left to ‘twist in the wind’ before finding chronic neglect)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parents’ fundamental liberty interest in custody decisions)