Matter of J.B. Jr. YINC
2016 MT 68
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Infant J.B., Jr. was adjudicated a Youth in Need of Care after parents shoplifted with the infant, Mother fled with the child, and Father brandished a knife while on probation and with outstanding felony warrants; J.B. was placed in foster care with sibling E.B.
- Father previously had parental rights to E.B. involuntarily terminated for abandonment and has multiple prior felonies and lengthy concurrent sentences; he remained incarcerated during these proceedings.
- The Department approved a court‑ordered treatment plan (stipulated to by Father and counsel) designed to preserve the parent–child relationship while accounting for incarceration; many tasks had an "ongoing" completion date.
- Father completed a chemical dependency evaluation and some programming but admitted to behavioral incidents while detained (cell flooding, breaking a sprinkler head, refusing orders); he also had episodes of noncompliance in pre‑release programs.
- The Department petitioned to terminate Father’s parental rights under § 41‑3‑609(1)(f), arguing the treatment plan was not successful and Father’s condition was unlikely to change; the District Court granted termination after ~15 months in foster care.
- Father appealed, arguing (1) the treatment plan was inappropriate (no deadlines) and (2) the plan was not proven unsuccessful; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father waived challenge to appropriateness of the treatment plan | Plan was appropriate and approved; Father stipulated | Plan was inappropriate because tasks had no deadlines (completion date "ongoing") | Waived — Father stipulated and failed to timely object, so challenge not preserved |
| Whether the treatment plan was "not successful" under § 41‑3‑609(1)(f)(i) | Plan unsuccessful due to Father’s inability to conform his conduct to law and failure to achieve stability | Plan was not shown unsuccessful; incarceration alone cannot be sole basis and Department offered no evidence of noncompliance | Affirmed — court found additional evidence (behavioral incidents, inability to conform) supporting failure/success determination |
| Whether termination was warranted because Father’s condition is unlikely to change under § 41‑3‑609(1)(f)(ii) | Father’s pattern of criminal conduct, prior termination, and ongoing incarceration make change unlikely within a reasonable time | Father complied with many plan tasks while incarcerated; incidents were at a detention center, not DOC; Department failed to prove long‑term noncompliance | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported finding Father’s conduct/condition unlikely to change; termination not an abuse of discretion |
| Reliance on prior termination to support current termination (alternative theory) | Prior involuntary termination of rights to sibling is relevant to ability to parent and supports termination | Prior termination alone insufficient; Department here relied on (f) and did not meet burden under that subsection | Concurring opinion: court could also affirm under prior‑termination theory because circumstances remained relevant; majority affirmed on (f) grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re A.T., 316 Mont. 255, 70 P.3d 1247 (court may not base termination solely on incarceration when incarceration was known and considered in formulating plan)
- In re D.F., 337 Mont. 461, 161 P.3d 825 (a treatment plan may be found unsuccessful even if parent completed required tasks)
- In re D.B., 339 Mont. 240, 168 P.3d 691 (standards for reviewing findings of fact in termination proceedings)
- In re J.N., 293 Mont. 524, 977 P.2d 317 (standard of review for legal conclusions)
- In re J.W., 371 Mont. 98, 307 P.3d 274 (prior termination and continuing unfitness support later termination)
- In re B.D., 381 Mont. 505, 362 P.3d 636 (presumption that termination is in child’s best interest when child has been in foster care 15 of last 22 months)