In Re MN, 2011 MT 245

Mother and Father appeal a district court order terminating their parental rights based on chronic, severe neglect under § 41-3-423(2)(a), and the court held reunification services were not required.
The Department had long prior involvement, with 2005 and 2007 petitions concerning C.N. and T.N., where Father relinquished rights to those children and Mother and Father received services.
In 2008 a petition was filed for J.N. and M.N. with adjudication of Youths in Need of Care; a treatment plan and extensive services were provided for about fourteen months.
Despite services, the family’s conditions deteriorated after dismissal of the 2008 petition as they stopped participating in therapy and other services.
J.N. sustained a serious head injury in 2010 amid inconsistent explanations; a moldy bottle and filthy home conditions were observed, leading to emergency protective actions and temporary placements.
The Department sought termination of parental rights as to all three youths, arguing aggravated circumstances due to chronic, severe neglect; the court found this predicate and terminated parental rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether chronic, severe neglect obviates reunification.	Mother and Father contend evidence from earlier petitions is irrelevant and that chronic, severe neglect was not proven.	Department argues the parents’ long-term neglect, including the head injury context and repeated unsafe conditions, supports termination without reunification.	Yes; district court properly found chronic, severe neglect and terminated parental rights without reunification.
Whether collateral estoppel or prior petitions barred current consideration.	Mother and Father claim earlier adjudications should preclude relitigation of their parenting ability.	Department maintains the current proceeding is distinct from prior petitions and not barred by collateral estoppel.	No; prior petitions did not bar current adjudication; evidence from earlier proceedings remained relevant to likelihood of change.

In re D.V., 2003 MT 160 (2003) (parental rights termination for abuse or neglect reviewed for clear error)
In re E.K., 2001 MT 279 (2001) (standard for termination and best interests of the child)
In re C.R.N., 1999 MT 92 (1999) (clear and convincing evidence standard for termination)
Dowell v. Montana Dept. of Public Health & Human Servs., 2006 MT 55 (2006) (collateral estoppel framework in public agency litigation)
Stanley L. & Carolyn M. Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 2004 MT 144 (2004) (identical issues require identical questions for collateral estoppel)
Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 2006 MT 51 (2006) (identification of issue identity in collateral estoppel)
Holtman v. 4-G's Plumbing & Heating, 264 Mont. 432 (1994) (complexity of issue identity in preclusion analysis)
Rich v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003 MT 51 (2003) (preclusion principles and non-final dismissals)
Schmitz v. Engstrom, 2000 MT 275 (2000) (application of civil procedure rules in abuse and neglect cases)
In re D.S., 2005 MT 275 (2005) (example of chronic, severe neglect supporting termination without reunification)