Matter of D.S. B.A.S.W. YINC
2017 MT 158N
Mont.2017Background
- Father (K.S.) was incarcerated; two children (D.S., age 3; B.A.S.W., newborn) were removed and adjudicated youths in need of care; the Department obtained temporary custody and later sought termination of Father's parental rights.
- Father was represented by counsel throughout and signed affidavits relinquishing parental rights and waiving notice of termination hearings; affidavits recited he received counsel and at least three hours of counseling at Montana State Prison explaining legal consequences and options.
- The Department accepted custody and filed petitions to terminate Father's parental rights in September 2016; Mother's parental rights were also terminated (not at issue here).
- The District Court found the Department made reasonable efforts, that returning the children or dismissing termination would risk harm or be detrimental, and that custody by Father was not in the children's best interests.
- Father appealed, arguing the relinquishments were not shown to be voluntary and that the court should have conducted/required a meaningful voluntariness colloquy under § 41-3-609(1) read with § 42-2-402.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Father) | Defendant's Argument (Department) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must independently examine voluntariness of relinquishment (e.g., meaningful colloquy) | Relinquishments were not proven voluntary; statutes require court inquiry/colloquy before accepting relinquishment | District Court’s findings (based on affidavits, counsel, and counseling) sufficiently show voluntariness | Court affirmed: findings supported by substantial evidence; no reversible error in voluntariness determination |
| Whether signing affidavits waiving rights while incarcerated negates voluntariness | Incarceration and circumstances required further judicial inquiry to ensure voluntariness | Affidavits, representation by counsel, and counseling showed informed, voluntary relinquishment despite incarceration | Held: voluntariness finding not clearly erroneous; termination not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of District Court findings supporting termination (reasonable efforts; best interests) | Father argued process deficient because voluntariness not adequately assessed, undermining termination findings | District Court found reasonable efforts, potential harm if returned, and children’s best interests favored termination | Held: factual findings supported by substantial evidence; legal conclusions correct |
| Standard of review applied to voluntariness and termination decision | N/A (Father relies on de novo review of legal standard) | Court applies clearly erroneous standard to findings and abuse of discretion to termination | Court applied standards and affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.K., 379 Mont. 41, 347 P.3d 711 (Mont. 2015) (standard for reviewing district court findings)
- In re K.B., 370 Mont. 254, 301 P.3d 836 (Mont. 2013) (standards for reviewing termination of parental rights)