Matter of C.A.T. YINC
2017 MT 264N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Father (D.T.) has an extensive felony history and long-term incarcerations; C.A.T. is his eight-year-old daughter who lived with him intermittently until 2012 and has had no direct contact with him since April 2014.
- Stepmother (B.T.) obtained full legal and physical custody in Tennessee in August 2015; in August 2016 she relinquished custody to DPHHS, which placed C.A.T. in foster care; Father learned of the foster placement only after Stepmother’s grandmother told him.
- DPHHS petitioned (Jan. 2017) to adjudicate C.A.T. a Youth in Need of Care (YINC), terminate parental rights of birth mother, Stepmother, and Father, and seek consent-to-adopt authority, alleging abandonment.
- At the Feb. 24, 2017 hearing, evidence showed Father had been incarcerated for over two years on a lengthy sentence, had limited recent contact with C.A.T., and that C.A.T. was stabilized in a pre-adoptive placement and had minimal memory of Father.
- The District Court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that C.A.T. was a YINC due to abandonment/neglect, that reunification services were not required because of Father’s long-term incarceration and child’s needs, and terminated Father’s parental rights; the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | State/DPHHS Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District Court complied with § 41-3-609(1)(f) in adjudicating C.A.T. a YINC based on abandonment | Court erred; required strict statutory compliance and DPHHS theory of abandonment was improper | Court properly applied statute: parents abandoned child; evidence showed lack of intent to resume custody and unfitness | Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported YINC adjudication |
| Whether reunification services were required under § 41-3-609(4)(c) | Denial of services improper; Father argued for reunification opportunities | Father faced long-term incarceration; child’s circumstances (age, needs, placement) made reunification not in best interest | Affirmed — § 41-3-609(4)(c) applied; services not required |
| Whether due process (notice, presence, hearing) rights were violated | Father contends he lacked adequate notice and opportunity to be present/heard | State argues issue was not preserved below and plain error review was not sought | Not reviewed on merits — unpreserved; no plain-error review requested |
| Whether Father received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial | Counsel failed to move for transport/telephonic appearance, and failed to present/ elicit evidence of prior treatment and parenting plans | Even if counsel was deficient, Father cannot show prejudice given substantial evidence supporting termination | Affirmed — no prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- In re K.B., 301 P.3d 836 (2013) (standard of review for termination and YINC adjudication)
- In re D.B., 168 P.3d 691 (2007) (abuse of discretion review for termination)
- In re M.J., 296 P.3d 1197 (2013) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- In re A.K., 347 P.3d 711 (2015) (clear-error review of factual findings)
- In re C.J.M., 280 P.3d 899 (2012) (clarifying clear-error standard)
- In re J.A.S., 288 P.3d 1119 (2010) (statutory elements for termination under § 41-3-609)