In Re Ss, 2012 MT 78

State filed abuse/neglect petition in Feb 2011 after substantiated alcohol abuse by Mother endangering and neglecting the children; children (ages 12 and 10) removed and placed with Father under a safety plan allowing only supervised contact with Mother.
Parenting arrangement: Mother and Father shared legal custody prior to removal; Father was designated primary placement.
District Court appointed separate counsel for Mother, Father, and children; guardian ad litem appointed; parties stipulated probable cause for emergency petition.
Mother continued alcohol abuse with failed urinalyses and an arrest under a temporary protection order; state sought adjudication of Youth in Need of Care.
Dispositional hearing held Oct 6, 2011; Father moved to dismiss and obtain full legal custody; court denied Mother’s witness request, then dismissed the State’s case and placed children with Father under § 41-3-438(3)(d); State and children’s attorney did not object.
Mother appeals from the dismissal and placement order, arguing error in proceedings and evidentiary rulings; courtforesees no factual disputes and affirms the placement under statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in dismissing the abuse/neglect proceeding and placing children with Father under § 41-3-438(3)(d).	Mother contends dismissal was improper and evidentiary issues unresolved.	Father and State argued no factual dispute; placement with Father was proper under statute.	Yes, the court did not err; dismissal and placement were proper under § 41-3-438(3)(d).
Whether the order is a final appealable judgment despite ongoing custody issues.	Mother argues order was not final since parental rights or custody not terminated.	Court held the order terminates jurisdiction over the case and is appealable.	Order is appealable as it terminates the abuse/neglect proceeding and jurisdiction over the matter.
Whether dispositional hearing requirements were violated by not presenting evidence about Father’s fitness when proceeding shifted to dismissal.	Mother asserts lack of factual inquiry on best interests since no allegations against Father.	No factual dispute; evidence not required where proceedings were dismissed.	Dispositional process complied; no evidence on Father’s fitness was necessary where dismissal occurred under § 41-3-438(3)(d).

In re A.C., 2004 MT 320, 324 Mont. 58, 101 P.3d 761 (2004) (review of placement orders when parental rights not terminated)
In re B.P., 2008 MT 166, 343 Mont. 345, 184 P.3d 334 (2008) (finality/appealability of custody orders in abuse/neglect context)
In re J.J.G., 266 Mont. 274, 880 P.2d 808 (1994) (relevance of evidentiary rights in proceedings where one parent is not alleged to have harmed children)
In re M.L.H., 220 Mont. 288, 715 P.2d 32 (1986) (comparative dispositional procedures in youth in need of care cases)
In re C.L.A., 211 Mont. 393, 685 P.2d 931 (1984) (limitations on evidentiary opportunities in disposition phase)
In re T.S.B., 2008 MT 23, 341 Mont. 204, 177 P.3d 429 (2008) (constitutional considerations in parental rights and care proceedings)