In re X.M., 2018 MT 264

Mother aged out of foster care, has history of physical/sexual abuse, low cognitive ability, and serious mental health disorders.
Infant X.M. born March 2016; removed April 1, 2016 after diagnosis of non-organic failure to thrive and concerns about Mother's caregiving and co-sleeping.
Department placed X.M. with Mother's former foster parents and developed a court-approved, case-specific treatment plan (signed by Mother, GAL, and counsel) requiring parenting classes, evaluations, housing stability, medication/therapy compliance, and regular visitation.
Department provided transportation, lodging, supervised visits, referrals to SafeCare, assessments, and residential placement options; Mother repeatedly missed appointments, refused/failed services, was evicted from a residency program, and did not complete the plan.
Neuropsychological and psychological evaluations diagnosed significant cognitive and psychiatric impairments and concluded Mother would require substantial, consistent treatment and supervision before safely parenting a toddler.
District Court terminated Mother’s parental rights under §41-3-609(1)(f), finding (1) noncompliance with an appropriate treatment plan and (2) that her condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; this appeal followed.

Issue	Mother's Argument	Department's Argument	Held
1. Denial of due process / reasonable efforts to reunify	Department failed to make reasonable efforts tailored to her disabilities	Department developed an appropriate, case-specific plan and provided transportation, services, and residential options	No due process violation; Department made reasonable efforts and plan was appropriate
2. Abuse of discretion in finding she was unlikely to change within a reasonable time	Mother needed more time/opportunity to demonstrate change and parenting ability	Child’s health and safety paramount; Mother’s severe cognitive/psychiatric impairments and failure to follow treatment made timely change unlikely	No abuse of discretion; termination supported by clear and convincing evidence

In re A.S., 373 P.3d 848 (Mont. 2016) (standard for reviewing termination of parental rights and abuse of discretion review)
In re K.A., 365 P.3d 478 (Mont. 2016) (abuse of discretion definition)
In re M.V.R., 384 P.3d 1058 (Mont. 2016) (standards for reviewing due process and findings)
In re D.B., 168 P.3d 691 (Mont. 2007) (requirements for treatment plans for disabled parents and reasonable efforts)
In re A.N., 995 P.2d 427 (Mont. 2000) (treatment plan adequacy and reunification efforts)
In re K.L., 318 P.3d 691 (Mont. 2014) (reasonable efforts vs. herculean efforts standard)
In re T.S., 310 P.3d 538 (Mont. 2013) (child’s best interests as paramount consideration)
In re T.D.H., 356 P.3d 457 (Mont. 2015) (clear-and-convincing evidence requirement in termination proceedings)