In re D.B., 288 P.3d 160

J.B. (Father) and M.S. (Mother) are D.B.'s biological parents; D.B. was born in 2000 and primarily raised by Mother, with Father having limited contact.
D.B. was removed from Mother's custody in 2010 after Mother's arrest for partner or family member assault, placing D.B. in Department temporary custody.
The Department developed a treatment plan for Father detailing his criminal history, substance abuse, domestic violence history, anger issues, and his inability to meet D.B.'s physical and emotional needs; D.B. reportedly did not want to live with Father.
Father stipulated to the treatment plan and its tasks, which the court approved in March 2010, with a completion deadline of July 28, 2010.
Father complied with portions of the plan but failed to establish a parenting relationship with D.B.; the Department sought and obtained multiple extensions over about 20 months before seeking termination of parental rights.
The court terminated Father’s parental rights, and Father challenged the treatment plan’s validity, the likelihood of change, and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Department's treatment plan appropriate?	Father argues the plan was inappropriate and/or not properly reevaluated.	Father stipulated to the plan and the Department acted within its discretion.	Yes; not an abuse of discretion; plan deemed appropriate given the child’s needs and Father’s history.
Would Father change within a reasonable time?	Father contends more time could enable rehabilitation.	Court should consider D.B.'s needs; Father showed persistent resistance.	No; Court did not abuse discretion; Father’s pattern over 20 months showed no likelihood of timely change.
Did Father receive ineffective assistance of counsel?	Father claims counsel should have challenged the plan and D.B.’s care status.	Father cannot show prejudice; counsel would not have altered the outcome given Father’s history.	No prejudice; no ineffective assistance given the surrounding facts and potential evidence.

In re D.B., 339 Mont. 240, 168 P.3d 691 (2007) (standard for evaluating whether a plan is appropriate and complied with)
In re M.N., 362 Mont. 186, 261 P.3d 1047 (2011) (abuse of discretion standard in termination of parental rights)
In re A.S., 320 Mont. 268, 87 P.3d 408 (2004) (due process and effective counsel considerations in termination cases)
In re C.M.C., 350 Mont. 391, 208 P.3d 809 (2009) (ineffective assistance standards and prejudice requirements)
In re B.S., 350 Mont. 86, 206 P.3d 565 (2009) (parental rights termination framework and best interests of child)