In re B.W.S., 386 P.3d 595

Child B.W.S., born Jan 2012, was removed from mother and placed in DHHS custody; placed with Jared and Cindy Watson in Feb 2012 and remained there ~3 years at time of hearing.
The Gilberts (intervenors) are relatives who have custody of two of B.W.S.’s half-siblings and sought placement of B.W.S. with them in Oregon.
Mother’s parental rights were terminated in Feb 2015 and permanent legal custody was granted to the Department; Department sought consent-to-adopt authority for the Watsons.
The District Court held a placement hearing Apr 17, 2015; Gilberts’ counsel arrived 45 minutes late and later complained of insufficient time to present evidence; transcript ~301 pages.
District Court found placement with the Watsons served the child’s best interests (bonding, health, no evidence of harm, removal would cause harm) and approved Department’s consent-to-adopt; court emphasized best-interest inquiry regardless of prior Department errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether it was in child’s best interest to remain with the Watsons	Gilberts: child should be placed with them to be with half-siblings	Department/Watsons: child is bonded, safe, and stable in current placement	Court: affirmed placement with Watsons as in child’s best interest; no abuse of discretion
Whether Gilberts were deprived of due process at placement hearing	Gilberts: insufficient time, preclusion of evidence, limited cross-examination, court mismanagement	Department: Gilberts had notice, opportunity to be heard; objections were not preserved below	Court: due process claims not preserved for appeal; parties had notice/opportunity, so no relief
Whether errors at hearing cumulatively require reversal	Gilberts: multiple alleged errors cumulatively denied fair process	Department: any procedural issues were insufficiently raised and not prejudicial	Court: cumulative-error claim not persuasive; record supports findings
Whether District Court exceeded authority in approving Department consent-to-adopt	Gilberts: Department mishandled earlier proceedings; placement approval improper	Department: statutory authority to settle placement disputes; hearing held with equal footing	Court: statutory framework permits court to resolve disputed placement; decision within discretion

In re B.W.S., 330 P.3d 467 (Mont. 2014) (prior reversal on recusal grounds in related proceedings)
In re J.A.B., 342 P.3d 35 (Mont. 2015) (standard of review for district court findings and abuse of discretion)
Kulstad v. Maniaci, 244 P.3d 722 (Mont. 2010) (notice and opportunity to be heard are hallmarks of due process)
In re A.H.D., 178 P.3d 131 (Mont. 2008) (primary consideration is child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs)
In re T.E., 53 P.3d 38 (Mont. 2002) (issues not raised in district court are forfeited on appeal)
In re M.W., 49 P.3d 31 (Mont. 2002) (preservation requirement for arguing procedural fairness)