In re C.B.D., 394 P.3d 202

Background

In 2012-2014 the Department (DPHHS) became aware of Mother’s substance abuse and unsafe conditions for her children, including P.M.P. testing positive at birth and later alleged methamphetamine use and dangerous household conditions.
In September 2014 P.M.P. was placed in emergency protective care with maternal relatives under ICWA; DPHHS later attempted services but Mother did not meaningfully participate.
By 2014–2016 the child P.M.P. had been living with non-ICWA-compliant caregivers (R.W. and J.A.) for roughly two years; DPHHS’s ICWA expert testified the placement did not comply with ICWA.
DPHHS filed to terminate Mother’s parental rights in April 2016; the District Court terminated her rights on August 30, 2016.
Mother appealed only the issue of P.M.P.’s placement (arguing ICWA §1912 notice violations and due process), not the termination itself.
The Montana Supreme Court addressed whether Mother had standing to challenge placement after termination and affirmed the District Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother has standing to challenge P.M.P.’s placement after her parental rights were terminated	Mother: ICWA and due process allow her to challenge placement (ICWA §1912 notice violations); §1914 permits challenge to foster-care placements even if not raised below	State: Termination extinguished Mother’s legal rights and participation rights; she lacks a personal stake because she did not appeal termination or seek a stay	Court: No standing — termination removed Mother’s legal rights to participate in placement; appealing placement alone doesn’t preserve standing
Whether ICWA §1914 allows an Indian parent to raise placement claims on appeal without objecting below	Mother: §1914/precedent permit first-time appellate ICWA challenges to notice requirements	State: Procedural posture deprives Mother of status needed to invoke §1914 protections after termination	Court: §1914 can permit challenges, but here Mother’s decision not to appeal termination leaves her without standing; Court does not reach merits
Whether a placement hearing remedy would alleviate Mother’s alleged injury	Mother: Ordering a placement hearing would correct ICWA/notice violations	State: Even with a hearing, Mother could not participate because her rights are terminated	Court: Even if injury existed, relief sought (placement hearing) would be ineffective because Mother lacks legal status to participate
Whether Mother waived any due-process objection by failing to raise it in District Court	Mother: Contends appellate review is proper for ICWA notice issues	State: Mother and counsel had opportunities below and did not object; failure to raise equals waiver	Court: Primary holding rests on standing; concurring opinion would find waiver of due-process objection for failure to raise below

Key Cases Cited

Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 360 Mont. 207 (questions of standing/justiciability reviewed de novo)
Schoof v. Nesbit, 373 Mont. 226 (standing requires past, present, or threatened injury that would be alleviated by relief)
In re H.T., 378 Mont. 206 (ICWA notice issues may be raised for first time on appeal under certain circumstances)
Matter of Paternity of Vainio, 943 P.2d 1282 (no standing where party lacks personal stake)
In re M.E.M., 635 P.2d 1313 (Montana courts’ duty to apply ICWA to preserve Indian cultural interests)
In re D.K.D., 250 P.3d 856 (issues not raised below may be waived on appeal)