In re A.K., 379 Mont. 41

In 2012 the Department of Public Health and Human Services removed children A.K. and KG. after concerns about domestic violence, parental protective capacity, and Father’s criminal/behavioral history.
Mother completed her treatment plan, was reunified with the children, and remained their primary caretaker; Father repeatedly failed to complete key treatment-plan tasks and was inconsistent with supervised visitation.
Evaluations diagnosed Father with Personality Disorder NOS and identified him as high risk for dangerousness; therapists reported A.K. became anxious and regressed after visits with Father.
The Department extended temporary legal custody several times to permit reunification efforts, at times declining to reinstate visitation based on therapist recommendations and child welfare concerns.
After Father missed required contacts, compliance steps (including UAs) and refused or failed to engage consistently with the Department, the Department filed to terminate his parental rights; the District Court found Father had not complied with the court‑approved treatment plan and was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed termination, holding the District Court did not abuse its discretion and the Department made reasonable reunification efforts; Justice McKinnon dissented, arguing the Department improperly acted to protect Mother and should have sought dismissal under § 41‑3‑424, MCA.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Department/Court’s Argument	Held
Whether the District Court abused its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights	Father argued he completed necessary tasks, the Department prevented contact and reunification, and his delays were work-related, so termination was improper	The Department and court argued Father failed to comply with the court‑approved treatment plan, showed power/control behavior, missed required contacts, and visitation harmed A.K.	Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination; court did not abuse discretion
Whether the Department satisfied its duty to provide reunification services (reasonable efforts)	Father argued the Department acted in bad faith, favored Mother, kept the case open to provide Mother counsel, and thus deprived Father of fair reunification efforts	The Department argued it provided evaluations, supervised visits, therapy, compliance coaching, and periodic reviews; keeping case open was justified by unresolved domestic‑violence/co‑parenting risks	Affirmed — court found Department made reasonable efforts to reunify under § 41‑3‑423(1)

In re L.N., 375 Mont. 480, 329 P.3d 598 (standards for reviewing termination of parental rights)
In re D.B., 339 Mont. 240, 168 P.3d 691 (parental liberty interest and good‑faith duties in treatment plans)
In re I.B., 360 Mont. 132, 255 P.3d 56 (partial/substantial compliance does not satisfy treatment plan requirement)
In re J.M.W.E.H., 287 Mont. 239, 954 P.2d 26 (clear‑and‑convincing standard does not require conclusive proof; trial court credibility determinations)
In re K.L., 373 Mont. 421, 318 P.3d 691 (reasonable‑efforts analysis is fact‑specific)
In re R.H., 250 Mont. 164, 819 P.2d 152 (parents retain ultimate responsibility to comply with plan despite state assistance)
In re CAR., 214 Mont. 174, 693 P.2d 1214 (consideration of past and present parental conduct in fitness analysis)