Matter of B.W.S. YINC, 2016 MT 340

B.W.S., born Jan 2012, was removed from her mother and adjudicated a youth in need of care; the Department received temporary, then permanent, legal custody after parental rights were terminated in Feb 2015.
The child was placed with foster parents Jared and Cindy Watson in Feb 2012 and had lived with them for over three years by the placement hearing.
Patrick and Corinne Gilbert (intervenors)—custodians of two of the child’s half-siblings in Oregon—intervened in 2013 seeking placement of B.W.S. with them.
The Department proposed the Watsons for adoption; the Gilberts contested the placement and raised concerns about the Watson household (including the Watsons’ adult son).
A full-day placement hearing was held Apr 17, 2015 (transcript ~301 pages); the district court found the child bonded to the Watsons, not at risk, and that removal would harm the child, and ordered placement remain with the Watsons for adoption.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process: insufficient time/evidence at placement hearing	Gilberts: late counsel and court time limits deprived them of fair opportunity to present/cross-examine evidence	State/Dept: Gilberts had notice, opportunity to be heard, and did not raise these specific objections in district court	Court: Claims not preserved for appeal; Gilberts had notice and hearing — no due process violation found
Safety risk from Watson household (esp. adult son)	Gilberts: Dalton Becker posed a danger; therefore placement with Watsons inappropriate	Dept/Watsons: No evidence of harm; child had been protected from Becker while placed	Court: No evidence of present risk; district court found Watsons safe and child protected
Best interests standard for placement	Gilberts: placement with half-siblings (Gilberts) is best for sibling continuity	Dept: Child bonded with Watsons, stable placement for 3+ years, removal would harm child	Court: Court exercised discretion and found Watson placement in child’s best interests; affirmed
Cumulative/constitutional errors from prior proceedings	Gilberts: prior alleged Department errors and cumulative trial errors require reversal	Dept: Any prior errors irrelevant to present best-interest inquiry; placement dispute properly decided by court	Court: Declined to reach broad constitutional claims; no reversible cumulative error; affirmed placement

In re J.A.B., 2015 MT 28 (standard of review for findings of fact and abuse of discretion)
In re M.B., 2009 MT 97 (presumption of correctness for discretionary rulings)
In re Johnson, 2011 MT 255 (abuse of discretion review and deference to trial court)
In re T.E., 2002 MT 195 (preservation of issues for appeal — must raise objections in district court)
Kulstad v. Maniaci, 2010 MT 248 (due process in child proceedings requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
In re A.H.D., 2008 MT 57 (primary consideration in placement disputes is the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs)
In re B.W.S., 2014 MT 198 (prior reversal on recusal grounds in earlier appeal)