In re K.A., 382 Mont. 165

Background

Three children removed in March–April 2013 after DPHHS received reports of parental methamphetamine use, sparse food, school absenteeism, and observable parental volatility; Mother tested positive for multiple controlled substances shortly after removal.
District Court adjudicated the children youths in need of care and placed them in DPHHS custody; court-ordered treatment plans for both parents aimed at reunification.
Father completed in-patient chemical dependency treatment but failed to complete outpatient treatment, missed/evaded requested UAs, tested positive later for methamphetamine and alcohol, and repeatedly disengaged from services.
Family was briefly returned to Mother (trial home visit) in August 2013; DPHHS continued concerns about Father’s substance use and the family’s safety after relapses and a positive hair test in June 2014.
DPHHS moved to dismiss as to Mother but sought restrictions or termination as to Father; the District Court terminated Father’s parental rights in January 2015 for failure of the treatment plan and the likelihood father’s condition would not change within a reasonable time. Father appealed.
Supreme Court affirmed termination, finding substantial evidence supported (1) the YINC adjudication, (2) noncompliance/unsuccessful treatment, and (3) that Father’s condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; dissent argued termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	DPHHS / District Court’s Argument	Held
Whether termination of Father’s parental rights was erroneous	Termination was not in children’s best interests — Father has bond, ability to support, and no proof he placed children at risk; court should have dismissed	Father failed to comply with/complete treatment plan, continued substance abuse, disengaged from services, and posed risk that wouldn’t be resolved in reasonable time	Affirmed: termination appropriate under §41-3-609(1)(f) based on noncompliance and unlikely change
Whether children were properly adjudicated as youths in need of care (YINC)	Father contests YINC adjudication	DPHHS: positive drug tests for Mother, parental admissions, missed UAs, neglect (lack of food, school truancy) supported adjudication	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported YINC adjudication (abuse/neglect risk)
Whether Father complied with and successfully completed court‑approved treatment plan	Father contends he partially complied and should not be penalized; argues Mother’s protective capacity made restrictions unnecessary	DPHHS: Father did not complete outpatient treatment, missed tests, relapsed (positive testing), evaded testing, and ceased participation	Affirmed: majority of plan not complied with and plan was not successful
Whether Father’s condition rendering him unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time	Father: limited positive tests; Mother demonstrated ability to protect children; Father employed and could support children; no clear violent history — so risk of continued abuse/neglect not established	DPHHS: 15+ months of similar conduct, relapse, evasive behavior, and nonparticipation show unlikely change; permanency required for children	Affirmed: evidence supported finding that father’s condition unlikely to change within a reasonable time; termination did not abuse discretion
Whether the court should have dismissed the petition under §41‑3‑424 when children remained with Mother	Father argued dismissal criteria satisfied because children were reunited and mother had progressed	DPHHS: continuing concerns about Father; dismissal without restrictions would leave children unprotected; sought termination if court would not impose restrictions	Affirmed denial of dismissal as to Father; dismissal as to Mother granted but only after resolving Father’s status via termination

Key Cases Cited

In re E.Z.C., 370 Mont. 116, 300 P.3d 1174 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for termination of parental rights)
In re T.W.F., 351 Mont. 233, 210 P.3d 174 (Mont. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard and review framework)
In re T.S., 372 Mont. 79, 310 P.3d 538 (Mont. 2013) (review of motion to dismiss is de novo)
In re D.B., 366 Mont. 392, 288 P.3d 160 (Mont. 2012) (appellate review principles for family law findings)
In re L.V.-B., 373 Mont. 344, 317 P.3d 191 (Mont. 2014) (standards for dismissal and effect of placement with one parent on other parent’s rights)
In re M.A.E., 297 Mont. 434, 991 P.2d 972 (Mont. 1999) (evaluating likelihood of parental change based on past conduct)
In re C.A.R., 214 Mont. 174, 693 P.2d 1214 (Mont. 1984) (historical precedent on parental rights and evidence of future risk)
In re Custody & Parental Rights of D.A., 344 Mont. 513, 189 P.3d 631 (Mont. 2008) (child’s need for permanent placement may supersede parental rights)