In re J.H., 382 Mont. 214

J.H., a seven-year-old, was removed from his mother's care after abuse/neglect allegations; father C.L. lived in Texas and sought custody.
Montana DPHHS (the Department) initially pursued reunification with mother while exploring placement with father via the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).
Texas CPS denied an ICPC home-study placement with father after criminal and CPS background checks revealed drug sales and a domestic-violence incident; father commissioned a private home study that was inconclusive.
J.H. and his half-sister B.S. were placed with maternal great-aunt E.J. in Texas; professionals and the guardian ad litem supported keeping the siblings together with E.J. for stability.
The District Court approved a permanency plan granting long-term custody to the Department, finding the Department made reasonable reunification efforts, placement with E.J. was in J.H.’s best interests, and placement with father would be contrary to those interests.
Father appealed, arguing the Department’s reunification efforts were insufficient, the best-interest finding lacked substantial evidence and required an explicit finding of parental unfitness, and the court failed to hold an age-appropriate consultation with J.H.

Issue	Father's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
1. Did the Department make reasonable efforts to reunify J.H. with father?	Department only sought ICPC clearance and should have dismissed the case to place J.H. with father.	ICPC compliance was required while the case was open; Dept. pursued ICPC, considered father’s private study, and dismissal was unsafe given father’s background.	Held: Dept. made reasonable efforts under the circumstances.
2. Was placement with E.J. rather than father contrary to J.H.’s best interests?	Court needed an explicit finding that father was "unfit"; evidence did not support best-interest finding.	No explicit unfitness finding required; substantial evidence supported placement with E.J. (sibling bond, stability, caretaker commitment) and concerns about father’s history.	Held: No unfitness finding required; substantial evidence supports placement with E.J.
3. Did the court err by approving the permanency plan without an age-appropriate consultation with J.H.?	Court failed to hold required consultation under statute.	Issue not preserved below; not raised in district court.	Held: Issue waived on appeal and not reviewed.

In re H.T., 343 P.3d 159 (discussing statutory review standards)
In re R.M.T., 256 P.3d 935 (standard for reviewing factual findings)
In re C.J.M., 280 P.3d 899 (clarifying clear-error review)
In re B.D., 362 P.3d 636 (viewing evidence in favor of prevailing party)
In re M.N., 261 P.3d 1047 (abuse of discretion standard)
In re K.L., 318 P.3d 691 (defining "reasonable efforts" to reunify)
In re Guardianship of J.R.G., 708 P.2d 263 (presumption favoring custody with natural parents)
Siebken v. Voderberg, 359 P.3d 1073 (definition of substantial evidence)
Marriage of Schmitz, 841 P.2d 496 (substantial evidence discussion)
In re S.S., 276 P.3d 883 (appealability of orders in abuse/neglect proceedings)
In re Matter of D.A., 68 P.3d 735 (what constitutes an appealable final order)
In re Transfer Territory From Poplar, 364 P.3d 1222 (issues raised first on appeal are not reviewed)