In re A.S., 2016 Mont. LEXIS 476

A.S. (born 2011) and A.M. (born 2008) were taken into state custody after reports of parental methamphetamine use, parental absence, and unsafe living conditions beginning October 2014.
The Department placed both children in protective custody, filed petitions adjudicating them as youths in need of care, and approved treatment plans for Mother (M.L.) and Father (T.S.). Both parents repeatedly failed to complete plan requirements.
Mother missed many appointments, failed chemical dependency evaluation and drug testing, poorly engaged in parenting classes, provided no medical documentation for claimed conditions, and attended only some supervised visits; the court found ongoing emotional instability and lack of a safe, stable home.
Father was frequently absent or incarcerated, failed to complete parenting classes or testing, provided no stable plan for A.S., and was often unreachable; he admitted he was not in a position to parent.
The Department filed termination petitions in July 2015. The District Court terminated Mother’s parental rights to both children and Father’s rights to A.S. in October 2015. Both parents appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of Mother’s parental rights was supported because her unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time	Mother: her failure to complete the plan stemmed from a mistaken belief a guardianship made the plan unnecessary and she needed more than eight months to show change	State/Department: Mother made little to no progress, was warned, and the children’s needs made further delay unreasonable	Affirmed: substantial evidence showed ongoing, unchanging problems and waiting longer was not in the children’s best interests
Whether the court lacked jurisdiction/erred by not expressly finding Father’s unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time	Father: court failed to make the statutory finding required by §41-3-609(1)(f)(ii); thus termination was unsupported and procedures unfair	State: factual record of persistent absence, incarceration, and failure to complete plan supports that change was unlikely; statutory formalism does not defeat termination	Affirmed: court’s findings implicitly established unlikelihood of change; substantial evidence supported termination as in child’s best interests

In re K.A., 365 P.3d 478 (Mont. 2016) (standard of appellate review for termination of parental rights)
In re E.Z.C., 300 P.3d 1174 (Mont. 2013) (termination-review principles)
In re C.J., 237 P.3d 1282 (Mont. 2010) (due process and fair procedures in abuse/neglect proceedings)
In re J.B., 368 P.3d 715 (Mont. 2016) (doctrine of implied findings applies when necessary findings are supported by evidence)
In re R.M.T., 256 P.3d 935 (Mont. 2011) (parent cannot benefit from lack of involvement; past conduct may show likelihood of no change)
In re K.B., 368 P.3d 722 (Mont. 2016) (statutory noncompliance in abuse/neglect cases does not affect subject-matter jurisdiction)