Matter of A. S. YINC, 2016 MT 182N

In July 2013 T.R. was arrested on child endangerment and drug-paraphernalia charges; the Department filed for emergency protective services and temporary custody of her daughter A.S. following multiple prior reports of inadequate supervision.
A.S. was adjudicated a youth in need of care on September 12, 2013; the District Court approved a court-ordered treatment plan for T.R. on December 12, 2013.
A.S. remained in foster care for over two years and was approximately 2½ years old when the Department petitioned to terminate T.R.’s parental rights on March 4, 2015.
At the termination hearing (June–September 2015), multiple social workers and service providers testified about T.R.’s partial compliance with the treatment plan, ongoing parenting deficiencies, and incidents raising safety concerns for A.S.
The District Court found by clear and convincing evidence that the court-approved treatment plan had not been successful and that T.R.’s conduct rendering her unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; it terminated T.R.’s parental rights on November 16, 2015.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed parent’s unfitness unlikely to change within a reasonable time	T.R.: Department failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her condition was unlikely to change	Department: Multiple witnesses said T.R. still lacked essential parenting skills and posed ongoing risk; A.S. needed permanency	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported finding of unlikely change
Whether T.R. complied with the court‑approved treatment plan	T.R.: She complied with many plan tasks (parenting classes, evaluations, visitations)	Department: Compliance was partial and plan was not successful in remedying core deficiencies (supervision, boundaries, managing special needs)	Court: Plan not successful; noncompliance/ineffectiveness satisfied statutory requirement
Whether child’s best interests and foster-care duration support termination	T.R.: Parental liberty interest warrants preservation where some rehabilitation occurred	Department: A.S. had been in state custody >15 of 22 months; best interests favor termination for permanency	Court: Child’s best interests prevail; statutory presumption applies and supports termination

In re A.K., 379 Mont. 41, 347 P.3d 711 (Mont. 2015) (standard of review for termination and burden of proof discussion)
In re D.B., 339 Mont. 240, 169 P.3d 691 (Mont. 2007) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.M.W.E.H., 287 Mont. 239, 954 P.2d 26 (Mont. 1998) (clear-and-convincing evidence does not require unanswerable proof)
In re J.C., 319 Mont. 112, 82 P.3d 900 (Mont. 2003) (rehabilitation evidence is relevant but does not preclude finding future danger)