In re D.S.B., 300 P.3d 702

J.H. is the birth father whose parental rights to two Indian children are at issue.
The Montana Fourth Judicial District Court terminated J.H.’s parental rights as to D.S.B. 1 and D.S.B. 2, and the State petitioned for permanent legal custody.
The children are Indian Children and ICWA applies; the State alleged sexual abuse, medical neglect, physical neglect, and exposure to unreasonable risks.
DPHHS prepared Phase I and Phase II treatment plans approved by the court on January 28, 2011, while J.H. was in the Department of Corrections for failing to register as a violent offender.
The State petitioned for termination on February 7, 2012; hearings occurred February 24, May 2, May 29, and May 31, 2012; the district court terminated J.H.’s parental rights on August 2, 2012.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the treatment plans were appropriate.	J.H. did not object to plans; argues plans were not narrowly tailored.	J.H. argues lack of tailoring; but (waived) due to no objection.	Plans deemed appropriate; evidence supports tailoring to issues.
Whether the State proved termination under ICWA.	State failed to prove active efforts and likely harm beyond reasonable doubt.	State proved active efforts and likely harm beyond reasonable doubt; ICWA standards satisfied.	Terminated rights; evidence supports active efforts and likely serious harm if custody retained.

In re A.N., 325 Mont. 379, 106 P.3d 556 (Mont. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard and findings of fact review in termination)
In re I.B., 360 Mont. 132, 255 P.3d 56 (Mont. 2011) (need for complete compliance with treatment plan; best interests)
In re H.R., 367 Mont. 338, 291 P.3d 583 (Mont. 2012) (waiver/objection rule for treatment plans; evidence of plan appropriateness)
In re T.W.F., 351 Mont. 233, 210 P.3d 174 (Mont. 2009) (active efforts under ICWA; consideration of parent’s incarceration)
In re G.S., 312 Mont. 108, 59 P.3d 1063 (Mont. 2002) (active efforts required beyond reasonable doubt when termination sought)
In re B.S., 350 Mont. 86, 206 P.3d 565 (Mont. 2009) (best interests are paramount; change unlikely in reasonable time)