In re H.T.
378 Mont. 206
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Mother (B.T.) had daughter H.T. removed after an emergency domestic-violence/drug incident; Department placed H.T. with a maternal great-aunt and filed for protective services.
- Department sent early notices indicating possible Indian status; Fort Belknap later confirmed H.T.’s eligibility and chose to monitor proceedings but did not participate.
- A show-cause hearing occurred; an adjudicatory hearing was scheduled for April 25, 2013, but the court and parties proceeded as though it were a dispositional hearing and Mother stipulated to a treatment plan and temporary legal custody.
- The court later issued an order adjudicating H.T. a youth in need of care (although the record lacked a formal adjudicatory hearing or explicit stipulation to adjudication).
- Department sought termination; termination hearing occurred January 9, 2014. The court terminated Mother’s parental rights and granted permanent legal custody to the Department. Mother appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Failure to hold an adjudicatory hearing under § 41-3-437, MCA | District Court erred by adjudicating without a proper adjudicatory hearing or explicit stipulation | Mother effectively stipulated (by agreeing to treatment plan/temporary custody); error waived because not raised below | Court: Waived/plain-error not found; adjudication challenge forfeited and termination not reversed on this ground |
| 2. ICWA notice to tribe for adjudication and termination | Fort Belknap did not receive proper/timely ICWA notice (registered mail, etc.) | Department gave prompt notice after identifying tribe; certified mail and return receipt suffice; emergency removal excused initial delay | Court: Notice adequate; emergency removal and prompt follow-up satisfied ICWA notice requirements |
| 3. ICWA evidentiary requirements at adjudicatory stage (active efforts; clear & convincing) | Court failed to require/show ICWA "active efforts" and clear-and-convincing evidence at adjudication | Emergency removal allowed temporary placement without full §1912(d)/(e) findings; Mother stipulated to temporary custody and evidence of neglect | Court: Because of emergency removal and Mother’s stipulation to temporary custody/treatment plan, additional §1912(d)/(e) proofs at adjudication were not required |
| 4. ICWA standard at termination (§1912(f): beyond a reasonable doubt and expert testimony) | Termination order applied wrong standard (clear & convincing) and lacked required findings tied to expert testimony | Court transcribed findings that continued custody would likely result in serious harm and expert testimony was presented; but written order used clear-and-convincing language | Court: Oral findings satisfy §1912(f) factual requirement, but written order applied wrong legal standard; judgment vacated and remanded for entry of a new order applying the §1912(f) beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.B. & T.B., 301 P.3d 836 (Mont. 2013) (standard for upholding termination under ICWA; federal standards must be followed)
- In re J.C., 183 P.3d 22 (Mont. 2008) (harmless error/plain-error principles in juvenile proceedings)
- In re A.S., 146 P.3d 778 (Mont. 2006) (waiver of objections to adjudication when not raised in district court)
- In re M.J.W., 961 P.2d 105 (Mont. 1998) (stipulation to treatment plan/temporary custody does not substitute for adjudication)
- In re B.N.Y., 77 P.3d 189 (Mont. 2003) (adjudication is threshold requirement for treatment-plan-based termination)
- In re M.S., 336 P.3d 930 (Mont. 2014) (procedural errors that do not affect outcome need not warrant reversal)