In re C.W.E., 382 Mont. 65

Two children, C.W.E. (7) and C.M.E. (5), were removed from Mother’s care in April 2013 after multiple referrals; Mother stipulated they were youths in need of care and DPHHS was granted temporary legal custody.
Mother’s court‑approved treatment plan required addressing chemical dependency, completing evaluations, maintaining visitation, abstaining from drugs/alcohol, and avoiding criminal activity; Mother signed the plan but failed to comply.
Evaluations and counseling disclosed long‑standing, daily substance abuse (alcohol, marijuana, methamphetamine, and other drugs), homelessness, unemployment, and admissions of drug‑related conduct; recommended inpatient treatment was not completed.
Mother missed visits and drug tests, tested positive or failed tests repeatedly, and had three arrests after removal (including DUI and meth possession); a bench warrant existed during the termination hearings.
Termination proceedings occurred Jan–Mar 2015; Mother largely did not appear in person. The District Court found Mother unlikely to change within a reasonable time and applied the statutory 15‑of‑22‑months presumption that termination was in the children’s best interests, and terminated parental rights on June 9, 2015.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DPHHS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother’s unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time	District Court erred; Mother could improve	Mother had long, ongoing substance abuse, homelessness, criminality, and failed treatment, so change was unlikely	Court affirmed: substantial evidence showed change unlikely within reasonable time
Whether the § 41‑3‑604(1) presumption (15 of 22 months) improperly applied because children were placed with family, not foster care	Presumption inapplicable; children were with kin/noncustodial fathers, not foster care	DPHHS had legal custody and placed children in kinship foster care options authorized by statute; presumption applies	Court affirmed: presumption applies when DPHHS has legal custody, including kinship placements
Whether Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to communicate; witnesses were not called, causing prejudice	Counsel’s training unchallenged; Mother alleges no specific prejudice or omitted witnesses; no showing of deficient performance causing harm	Court affirmed: no demonstration of ineffective assistance or resulting prejudice

In re L.N., 375 Mont. 480, 329 P.3d 598 (standard of review for termination)
In re A.S., 334 Mont. 280, 146 P.3d 778 (assessment of parent’s past and present conduct for likelihood of change)
In re M.T., 310 Mont. 506, 51 P.3d 1141 (courts rely on past conduct when predicting future change)
In re T.S., 372 Mont. 79, 310 P.3d 538 (children need stability and permanency; courts need not leave children ‘‘to twist in the wind’’)
In re B.M., 356 Mont. 327, 233 P.3d 338 (ineffective assistance requires prejudice)
Sartain v. State, 365 Mont. 483, 285 P.3d 407 (standard for mixed questions of law and fact in ineffective assistance review)