In re T.D.H., 380 Mont. 401

Mother and Father subjected children to physical and psychological abuse; three children ages ~10–14 were removed to foster care and later placed in treatment facilities.
Department initially filed emergency protective services and temporary investigative authority; CASA appointed for the children; initial treatment plans aimed at reunification.
Mother’s plan required domestic violence work, psychological evaluations, counseling, chemical dependency evaluation, and regular visits with children; Mother struggled to comply and had contact with Father.
Department sought termination after prolonged custody; termination hearings spanned several years with extensions of temporary custody granted.
Ja.H. developed a position against reunification; OPD moved to reassign counsel for Ja.H., but the court rescinded OPD’s appointment prior to the termination hearing; OPD appealed.
Court ultimately terminated Mother’s parental rights to all three children and denied OPD’s motion to appoint counsel for Ja.H.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in rescinding Ja.H.’s counsel	OPD argues rescission violated Ja.H.’s right to counsel	Court found Ja.H.’s interests aligned with the Department; no objection to no counsel at hearing	No reversible error; no cognizable injury shown by OPD
Whether Mother's conduct or condition supported termination as unlikely to change	Department showed multiple factors beyond protection failures	Mother argues only initial protection issue should be considered	Supported by substantial evidence that unfitness unlikely to change
Whether the Department made reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and children	Mother claims inadequate efforts/fairness	Department provided extensive services and monitored participation	Reasonable efforts found; court credited services and visitation management
Whether Mother was denied due process in termination proceedings	Department failed to account for domestic violence history; multiple case workers hindered fairness	Procedures were fair; Mother had counsel and opportunity to participate	Not denied due process; procedures fair given circumstances
Whether the GAL/counsel framework violated minor Ja.H.’s rights	Ja.H. entitled to independent counsel; rescission harmed his rights	State argued no need for counsel due to termination outcome	Court declined broader relief; no remand for new counsel; dissenting view noted

In re J.G., 321 Mont. 54 (2004 MT) (issues may be broadened beyond initial removal for child protection; notice required before termination)
In re J.M.W.E.H., 287 Mont. 239 (1998 MT) (clear and convincing standard does not require unanswerable evidence; weighs credibility)
D.B., 339 Mont. 240 (2007 MT) (clear and convincing standard; substantial evidence review)
S.L.M., 287 Mont. 23 (1997 MT) (minor’s right to equal protection in dependency proceedings)
Matter of R.B., 217 Mont. 99 (1985 MT) (parental liberty interest; counsel required for fair process)
In re K.H., 366 Mont. 18 (2012 MT) (distinguishes GAL vs. counsel roles; duties described)
In re H.R., 2012 MT 290 (2012 MT) (treatment plan compliance and termination standards)