In re K.B.
2016 Mont. LEXIS 518
| Mont. | 2016Background
- K.B., born 2007, was removed from mother’s care in Nov. 2012 for exposure to domestic violence/drug use and placed with maternal relatives where she thrived. She was adjudicated a Youth in Need of Care in May 2013.
- The Department prepared a written plan for Father; he requested the title be changed from “Treatment Plan” to “Checklist,” but the substance remained and the court approved it; Father signed in June 2013.
- The Department later filed to terminate parental rights; Mother consented to termination in April 2015; Father opposed termination and requested six more months to complete his checklist.
- Evidence at the termination hearing showed K.B. had made substantial progress with relatives, Father had poor contact, visitation was suspended after incidents and allegations (including alleged methamphetamine use and leaving K.B. unattended), and Father had been recently incarcerated.
- The District Court terminated Father’s parental rights under § 41-3-609(1)(f), finding the approved plan was unsuccessful, Father’s unfitness was unlikely to change in a reasonable time, and termination was in K.B.’s best interests. Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Department/Court’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate rights | District Court lacked jurisdiction because Father’s document was only a “checklist,” not a statutory treatment plan, and Father was a non-offending parent | District courts have broad constitutional jurisdiction over civil matters including child abuse/neglect; statutory labeling does not create or defeat jurisdiction | Court held it had subject-matter jurisdiction; statutory nonconformity doesn’t deprive jurisdiction |
| Effective assistance of counsel — failure to object to Youth-in-Need-of-Care adjudication | Counsel should have objected to adjudication/insisted on contested hearing | Evidence supported adjudication; any objection would not have changed outcome (no prejudice) | Counsel’s failure to object was not prejudicial; ineffective assistance claim fails |
| Effective assistance of counsel — failure to object to characterization of the document as a treatment plan | Counsel should have objected because the title change (to “checklist”) altered statutory requirements | The substance met statutory definition of a treatment plan regardless of title; Father was evaluated and required to take corrective actions | Court held document qualified as a treatment plan; no prejudice from counsel’s conduct |
| Effective assistance of counsel — failure to object to jurisdiction | Counsel should have objected to jurisdiction | As above, court had jurisdiction independent of statutory formality | No prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- In re B.W.S., 376 Mont. 43, 330 P.3d 467 (discussing that failure to follow statutory requirements does not strip subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re B.M., 356 Mont. 327, 233 P.3d 338 (standard for reviewing ineffective assistance of counsel in parental-rights proceedings)
- In re J.J.L., 355 Mont. 23, 233 P.3d 921 (plenary review of ineffective-assistance claims in dependency cases)
- In re A.S., 320 Mont. 268, 87 P.3d 408 (parents’ due process right to effective counsel in termination proceedings)
- Lorang v. Fortis Ins. Co., 345 Mont. 12, 192 P.3d 186 (scope of district court subject-matter jurisdiction under the Montana Constitution)