In re L.V.-B., 317 P.3d 191

Mother contested termination after child placed with Father; prior case involved removal for drug use, homelessness, and unsafe caregiving; Department offered treatment plans which Mother largely did not follow; Father completed his plan and L.V.-B. was placed with Father; termination petition filed January 2013; Mother non-attended termination hearing and faced Department witnesses.
Department sought termination under § 41-3-609, MCA, arguing Mother’s conduct unlikely to change; court held best interests served by termination.
Hearing featured testimony that Mother did not undergo drug evaluation or treatment, missed visits, and had multiple drug convictions; Department sought termination to prevent future harm and enable adoption.
Court denied Mother’s motion to dismiss, terminated rights under § 41-3-609, MCA, and concluded no procedural due process violation; placement with Father did not mandatorily dismiss petition.
This appeal challenges due process, § 41-3-424, MCA, and timeliness of petition; court affirmed dismissal denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother’s substantive due process claim was properly analyzed.	Mother asserted substantive due process rights to remain parent.	State framed issue as procedural due process; substantive framework not applicable.	Claim not properly articulated; procedural framework does not apply to substantive claim; affirmed denial of motion to dismiss.
Whether § 41-3-424, MCA, and placement with Father required dismissal of the petition.	Placement with Father satisfied § 41-3-424 first condition.	Placement with Father does not reunite Mother; statute applies to nonoffending parent and not to this situation.	Not satisfied; § 41-3-424 does not require dismissal.
Whether the State’s termination petition was premature.	Petition filed prematurely; waiting period under § 41-3-604, MCA, should apply.	No waiting period required; petition may be initial filing; hardship considerations support termination.	No premature filing; statute allows termination when conduct unlikely to change in reasonable time.

In re T.S.B., 341 Mont. 204, 177 P.3d 429 (2008 MT 23) (guides predictive assessment of a parent's likelihood to change; timing of termination)
In re M.A.L., 334 Mont. 436, 148 P.3d 606 (2006 MT 299) (parent's conduct unlikely to change in reasonable time; factors for termination)
In re A.J.E., 331 Mont. 198, 130 P.3d 612 (2006 MT 41) (evidence of past conduct supports likelihood of change analysis)
In re J.M.J., 296 Mont. 510, 989 P.2d 840 (1999 MT 277) (failure to meet treatment goals supports termination likelihood)
In re C.M.C., 350 Mont. 391, 208 P.3d 809 (2009 MT 153) (predictive assessment of parent’s conduct required)
In re A.S., 334 Mont. 280, 146 P.3d 778 (2006 MT 281) (ongoing drug use and instability support termination)
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388 (1982) (balancing parens patriae and constitutional rights in termination)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000) (fundamental liberty interests in child custody)