In re T.S., 372 Mont. 79

Father (K.S.) is hard of hearing; Mother (E.S.) is deaf. Four children were removed after being found unsupervised in a park and the father was found passed out at home; concerns included alcohol, unsanitary conditions, missed medication for a child with seizures, and allegations of physical abuse.
Children adjudicated youths-in-need-of-care; Department obtained temporary legal custody and the District Court approved a court-ordered treatment plan for Father on December 7, 2011.
Father completed inpatient chemical-dependency treatment and some outpatient programming but stopped outpatient treatment in mid-2012; he also missed many random urinalyses and produced several alcohol-positive tests. He did not complete recommended mental-health treatment for anxiety.
Children showed trauma, fear, and disclosures of physical abuse; therapists recommended supervised visits and extensive counseling before reunification; two older children were later reunited with Mother, two younger remained in foster care.
District Court found by clear and convincing evidence Father failed to complete the treatment plan and that his alcohol-related condition rendering him unfit was unlikely to change in a reasonable time; it terminated Father’s parental rights. Father appeals.

Issue	Father’s Argument	State/Department’s Argument	Held
Whether Father preserved challenge to treatment‑plan adequacy when he didn’t timely object	Plan was inadequate because it failed to account for Father’s hearing impairment and interpreter problems	Father stipulated to the plan, was represented by counsel, and failed to timely object; interpreter issues arose later and were not promptly raised	Waived: father failed to timely object; court will not consider the challenge
Whether court abused discretion by terminating Father’s rights without also terminating Mother’s rights	Court should have postponed termination to give Father more time because Mother’s situation left two children’s placements uncertain	Best interests of children control; Father’s own failure to complete plan and ongoing substance/mental‑health issues justify termination independent of Mother’s status	No abuse: court may terminate one parent’s rights even if other parent’s rights remain; termination was in children’s best interests

In re D.S.B., 2013 MT 112, 370 Mont. 37, 300 P.3d 702 (parent who does not timely object to a treatment plan waives challenge on appeal)
In re D.B. and D.B., 2007 MT 246, 339 Mont. 240, 168 P.3d 691 (treatment plans must be evaluated for accommodation of parental disabilities where objections were timely raised)
In re C.J.M., 2012 MT 137, 365 Mont. 298, 280 P.3d 899 (factors for assessing treatment‑plan appropriateness include counsel representation and whether plan addresses parent’s/child’s particular problems)
In re A.A., 2005 MT 119, 327 Mont. 127, 112 P.3d 993 (failure to timely object to negotiated treatment plans waives challenge)
In re M.T., 2002 MT 174, 310 Mont. 506, 51 P.3d 1141 (party seeking termination must prove statutory criteria by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Custody & Parental Rights of D.A., 2008 MT 247, 344 Mont. 513, 189 P.3d 631 (children’s best interests are paramount in termination proceedings)
In re A.D.B., 2013 MT 167, 370 Mont. 422, 305 P.3d 739 (courts need not delay permanency where parents fail to secure stability)