In Re RMT, 2011 MT 164

R.M.T. was adjudicated a youth in need of care; Department gained temporary legal custody in 2008.
Father J.A. failed to complete his treatment plan and maintain contact with R.M.T. or the Department.
Mother K.T. had a long history of abuse/neglect toward R.M.T. and did not intend to complete her treatment plan.
R.M.T. moved to Havre and expressed a preference to stay with the Hellebusts, while seeking ongoing relationship with Father.
A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed; the court scheduled termination hearings in 2010 after nearly two years in Department custody.
The District Court terminated both parents’ rights, finding failure to comply with the treatment plan and likelihood that parental conduct would not change; Father appealed alleging abuse of discretion and due process issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination was an abuse of discretion	J.A. argues the court did not adequately find unchangeability under §41-3-609(2).	The court found multiple statutory factors showing unfitness unlikely to change and continued risk to the child.	No abuse of discretion; findings supported termination.
Whether due process was violated by cross-examination denial of GAL	J.A. contends he had a right to cross-examine the GAL regarding a written report.	GAL acted as child’s attorney with professional conduct constraints; cross-examination not allowed.	Due process required cross-examination; issue discussed with additional rationale concurs.

Jacobsen v. Thomas, 2004 MT 273 (Mont.) (due process requires opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses in custody cases)
In re Krause, 2001 MT 37 (Mont.) (child custody decisions guided by best interests; custody decisions not determined by wishes alone)
In re D.B., 2007 MT 246 (Mont.) (clear and convincing evidence required for termination; statutory criteria must be addressed)
In re I.B., 2011 MT 82 (Mont.) (abuse/neglect termination standards; statutory factors for fitness evaluation)
In re Moyer, 173 Mont. 208 (Mont.) (guardian-ad-litem and attorney roles in proceedings; cross-examination implications)
In re Mental Health of K.G.F., 2001 MT 140 (Mont.) (role of attorney representing respondent’s wishes vs. GAL duties)
Hilliard v. Smith (In re Parenting of N.S.), 2011 MT 98 (Mont.) (child’s best interests standard; express wishes not determinative)
In re Marriage of Merriman, 247 Mont. 491 (Mont.) (court custody decisions guided by child’s best interests)
In re Marriage of Arrotta, 244 Mont. 508 (Mont.) (awarding custody based on best interests, not merely preferences)
In re Marriage of Ulland, 251 Mont. 160 (Mont.) (considerations in custody determinations related to best interests)