In re I.B., 255 P.3d 56

Department removed I.B. from his parents in June 2008 due to neglect of medical care; I.B. was ~5 months old.
I.B. was adjudicated a youth in need of care; parents stipulated to treatment plans addressing care, safety, and attachment.
I.B. required specialized feeding on a strict schedule to avoid aspiration due to respiratory issues from prematurity.
Family Concepts provided in-home services, supervised visitation, and parenting training; concerns persisted about parents following feeding instructions.
An unannounced visit revealed I.B. with a bottle propped in his mouth; Department determined parents could not meet his medical needs.
Cherokee Nation intervened; ICWA expert testified ongoing safety concerns; foster placement continued; termination hearing held fall 2009–May 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantial evidence supports NOC adjudication	I.B. subjected to actual harm and risk due to neglect	Evidence insufficient to prove neglect by preponderance	Evidence supports adjudication
Abuse of discretion in termination	Parents failed treatment plans; unfit to care; likely to harm if returned	Potential for change; not enough time given	Termination upheld
Active efforts to prevent breakup of Indian family	Department provided extensive remedial services	Efforts not aimed at preventing breakup	Department made active efforts to prevent breakup
Effective assistance of counsel	ICWA expert testimony necessary; counsel failed to present rebuttal	No constitutional deficiency; cross-examination adequate	Counsel not ineffective; no prejudice shown

In re B.M., 356 Mont. 327, 233 P.3d 338 (2010 MT 114) (abuse of discretion standard; effective assistance of counsel considerations)
In re J.M., 353 Mont. 64, 218 P.3d 1213 (2009 MT 332) (ICWA applicability and standard of review for termination cases)
In re G.S., 312 Mont. 108, 59 P.3d 1063 (2002 MT 245) (ICWA active efforts requirement; heightened duties)
In re T.W.F., 351 Mont. 233, 210 P.3d 174 (2009 MT 207) (active efforts evaluated; services provided are not automatically reunification)
In re D.F., 337 Mont. 461, 161 P.3d 825 (2007 MT 147) (partial compliance not sufficient; must attain purpose of plan)
In re L.H., 336 Mont. 405, 154 P.3d 622 (2007 MT 70) (define successful completion of treatment plan; must effectuate plan purposes)
In re S.C., 869 P.2d 266 (1994 MT) (standards for completion and effectiveness of parenting plans)