Matter of A.R.N. YINC
2017 MT 133N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- A.R.N., born May 2014, was placed in foster care in October 2015 and remained there at the time of appeal.
- Birth Father has a long history of severe drug use and untreated anger issues; evaluations recommended intensive inpatient chemical dependency treatment and anger management.
- Birth Father briefly entered treatment but left after two days and refused further recommended treatment; he tested positive for marijuana and faced related criminal charges.
- The Department filed for protective services in August 2015; the District Court adjudicated A.R.N. a youth in need of care and approved a treatment plan for Birth Father in February–March 2016.
- The Department petitioned to terminate Birth Father’s parental rights in August 2016 for failure to comply with the court-ordered treatment plan; the District Court terminated parental rights in November 2016, finding by clear and convincing evidence termination served the child’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court’s failure to expressly state the standard of proof rendered the termination constitutionally infirm | Birth Father: court did not identify/enunciate the burden of proof (clear and convincing) so termination is infirm | State/Dept: court’s findings show it applied clear and convincing standard and satisfied statutory requirements | Court: declined to reach constitutional argument because record plainly supported statutory findings; affirmed termination |
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that the condition rendering Birth Father unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time | Birth Father: argued insufficient evidence that unfitness was unlikely to change | State/Dept: substantial evidence (treatment refusal, drug use, dangerousness, inconsistent visitation) showed unlikely improvement | Court: substantial evidence supported that Father failed to complete plan and conditions were unlikely to change; termination appropriate |
| Whether District Court abused its discretion in terminating parental rights | Birth Father: termination was arbitrary or exceeded bounds of reason | State/Dept: District Court made detailed findings addressing best interests and statutory factors | Court: no abuse of discretion; findings satisfied § 41‑3‑609 and supported termination |
| Whether statutory requirements for termination were met (failure to comply with treatment plan; best interest of child) | Birth Father: contested compliance and best‑interest conclusion | State/Dept: Father failed to follow treatment, posed elevated risk, inconsistent visitation; termination in child’s best interest | Court: statutory requirements met; termination affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.Z.C., 370 Mont. 116, 300 P.3d 1174 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for termination of parental rights is abuse of discretion)
- In re C.M.C., 350 Mont. 391, 208 P.3d 809 (Mont. 2009) (court must make specific findings addressing the child’s best interests and statutory mandates)