Matter of H.R. D.R. YINC
2012 MT 290
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Birth mother T.R. has long‑standing schizoaffective disorder and bipolar type treated with multiple medications.
- In May 2010 the Department of Health and Human Services initiated care proceedings in Yellowstone County for two children, H.R. and D.R., ages 3 and 4.
- A treatment plan approved on September 27, 2010 aimed to improve T.R.’s mental health, ensure a safe home, maintain the bond with the children, and cooperate with the Department; nine tasks supported four goals.
- T.R. largely resided in Missouri and received inpatient and other treatment; at termination hearing she remained in a Missouri facility with guardian testimony about unlikely discharge within a year.
- CPS Fitch testified T.R. failed to complete key tasks, including anger assessment, maintain contact with the children, and maintain weekly contact; threats to Fitch impeded direct communication.
- District Court found the treatment plan appropriate and that T.R. had not complied with tasks, concluding termination of parental rights was in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the treatment plan appropriate for T.R.? | TR did not object; plan designed to fit her mental health. | Plan was tailored and workable given her condition. | Plan deemed appropriate by district court. |
| Did T.R. fail to comply with the treatment plan? | TR arguably complied with some tasks; noncompliance possible only if evidence shows failure. | TR failed to complete key tasks and maintained insufficient contact with children and CPS. | TR found not to have fully complied with tasks two, six, and seven; partial compliance insufficient. |
| Was noncompliance proven by clear and convincing evidence? | State contends substantial evidence supports noncompliance. | TR argues possible undiscovered completion of task two due to information gaps. | District court’s finding of noncompliance supported by substantial evidence. |
| Is termination of parental rights in the best interests of the children? | Continued abuse/neglect risk without stable permanency. | Children require permanent, stable home; parental rights termination appropriate. | Termination in the children’s best interests affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.J.L., 2010 MT 4 (Mont.) (abuse of discretion standard for termination; thresholds for termination)
- In re D.A., 2008 MT 247 (Mont.) (best interests and unfitness change expectations)
- In re C.J.M., 2012 MT 137 (Mont.) (considerations for treatment plan appropriateness and preservation of rights)
- In re D.B., 2007 MT 246 (Mont.) (standard for reviewing findings of fact and compliance with plan)
- In re L.H., 2007 MT 70 (Mont.) (complete compliance required; partial compliance insufficient)
- In re D.F., 2007 MT 147 (Mont.) (clear and convincing evidence standard for compliance with treatment plan)
- In re A.C., 2001 MT 126 (Mont.) (preservation of error and waiver considerations in treatment plans)