In re R.M.T., 256 P.3d 935

J.A. is the father whose parental rights were terminated regarding R.M.T., and the district court terminated both J.A. and M.T.'s parental rights, affirming termination as in R.M.T.'s best interests.
R.M.T. was adjudicated a youth in need of care due to Mother’s abuse/neglect and was placed in Department custody for approximately two years before termination.
Father had not completed his treatment plan, failed to establish a sustained parent-child relationship, and had limited contact with R.M.T. or Gradney (the social worker).
The treatment plan required Father to provide a stable, sober home, attend parenting classes, regularly contact Gradney, and write a personal history; Father failed to meet most of these tasks.
The court found substantial evidence that Father was unable or unwilling to provide adequate parental care and that continued parent-child contact was unlikely to improve in a reasonable time.
The termination ruling also addressed due process concerns about cross-examination of the guardian ad litem (GAL) and ultimately held that the GAL could be cross-examined as a witness regarding factual matters, with the court ultimately affirming the decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion terminating parental rights.	J.A. contends the court failed to find fitness unlikely to change under § 41-3-609(2).	The court properly adjudicated YIC, found failure to comply with the treatment plan, and that continued relationship was unlikely to change.	No abuse; statutory criteria met.
Whether due process was violated by refusing cross-examination of GAL Williams at termination.	The GAL’s report and testimony should be cross-examined; Williams had factual information affecting outcomes.	GAL’s role and attorney status create a distinction; cross-exam should be limited.	Remains meritorious; cross-examination required for factual reports; affirmation of termination with consideration of harmless error analysis.

In re J.M., 218 P.3d 1213 (Mont. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard in termination proceedings)
In re D.B., 168 P.3d 691 (Mont. 2007) (clear and convincing evidence for termination; statutory criteria)
In re A.J.E., 130 P.3d 612 (Mont. 2006) (statutory criteria and standard of review for termination)
Jacobsen v. Thomas, 100 P.3d 106 (Mont. 2004) (due process and cross-examination of GAL in custody cases)
In re Krause, 19 P.3d 811 (Mont. 2001) (parental fitness and change of circumstances analysis)
In re Moyer, 567 P.2d 47 (Mont. 1977) (guardian ad litem role and evidentiary considerations)
Hillard v. Smith (In re Parenting of N.S.), 253 P.3d 863 (Mont. 2011) (best interests vs. wishes standard in custody decisions)
In re Mental Health of K.G.F., 29 P.3d 485 (Mont. 2001) (attorney's role versus GAL advocacy in court)
Jacobsen, 323 Mont. 183 (Mont. 2004) (GAL as child’s best interests advocate; cross-examination of report necessity)