In re M.V.R.
2016 Mont. LEXIS 1006
| Mont. | 2016Background
- In late 2014 DPHHS removed M.V.R. from Mother’s care after reports of drug use, bizarre behavior, school absence, and Mother’s refusal of testing; children were adjudicated youths in need of care and temporary legal custody was granted.
- DPHHS adopted a court-approved treatment plan requiring sobriety, substance- and mental-health treatment, parenting classes, supervised contact, and stable housing/employment.
- Mother intermittently engaged in services: multiple outpatient sessions, two short inpatient stints at MCDC (both abandoned before completion), sporadic UAs, relapse, and termination from outpatient treatment for misconduct.
- DPHHS twice extended temporary custody to allow Mother more time; overall she had about 14 months of court-supervised services before DPHHS renewed a termination petition.
- At the final hearing Mother sought to change counsel and at times was unrepresented, but the court found she had opportunities to secure counsel and ultimately denied delay tactics; the court terminated Mother’s parental rights to M.V.R. and she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (DPHHS) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether court erred by not making specific findings that DPHHS made “reasonable efforts” to reunify under §41-3-423(1), MCA | District Court failed to address or find reasonable efforts were made; thus due process violated | Record shows DPHHS created and offered a court-approved treatment plan, multiple services, reengagement opportunities, and extensions — satisfying reasonable-efforts standard | No error — record demonstrates reasonable efforts; explicit finding not required for termination here |
| 2. Whether termination based on failed treatment plan complied with §41-3-609(1)(f) (clear and convincing proof the plan failed and parental condition unlikely to change) | Mother needed more time/resources; evidence did not show condition unlikely to change within reasonable time | Mother repeatedly relapsed, failed to complete inpatient programs, missed UAs, was dismissed for misconduct — statutory criteria met | Court’s findings supported by substantial evidence; termination proper |
| 3. Whether Mother’s due process right to counsel was violated by delay/failure to reappoint public defender | Mother was without counsel June–Sept 2015 and court failed to immediately reappoint a public defender, depriving her of fair process | Mother had earlier waived/terminated public defender, was informed to obtain counsel, refused/failed to follow up; court twice continued proceedings and appointed counsel when prompted | No due process violation — Mother had counsel at critical stages and did not timely request appointed counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (Due process requires heightened procedural protections before terminating parental rights)
- In re T.S., 310 P.3d 538 (Termination of parental rights reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re A.S., 373 P.3d 848 (Right to counsel and standards for procedural review in termination proceedings)
- In re J.H., 367 P.3d 339 (Reasonable-efforts inquiry is fact-specific and does not demand herculean efforts)
- In re D.F., 161 P.3d 825 (Definition and review of clearly erroneous factual findings)
- In re D.B., 168 P.3d 691 (No statutory requirement that court make a separate finding that DPHHS engaged in reasonable efforts prior to termination)