Matter of K.E.R., YINC, 2021 MT 224N

Mother (K.M.) appealed the district court's May 20, 2021 order terminating her parental rights to K.E.R.; the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Child and Family Services) initiated involvement after the birth of Mother's second child.
Child had been living with maternal grandmother for several months before the Department became involved; Child was adjudicated a Youth in Need of Care (YINC) on May 22, 2019.
An appropriate treatment plan was approved April 1, 2019; Mother did not complete the plan and asked at the August 26, 2020 termination hearing for additional time after making some recent progress.
The Department filed a termination petition (Mar. 13, 2020); the district court terminated Mother's parental rights at the bench after weighing permanency vs. additional time for reunification.
Mother argued on appeal that guardianship with Grandmother (rather than termination/adoption) would better serve Child's best interests; the State responded that Mother failed to raise guardianship below.
The Supreme Court affirmed: it held (1) Mother failed to preserve the guardianship argument for appeal, and (2) the district court's findings supporting termination under § 41-3-609(1)(f) and (2), MCA, were not clearly erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation: Did Mother preserve the argument that guardianship with Grandmother was in Child's best interest?	Mother: Guardianship was available and preferable; adoption not clearly superior.	State: Mother never filed motion/petition or obtained Dept. consent; issue raised first on appeal.	Not preserved; appellate court declined to consider unraised issue.
Sufficiency for termination: Was termination supported by clear and convincing evidence and in Child's best interests?	Mother: She had made recent progress and should be given more time; strong parent–child bond favors maintaining relationship.	State: Mother failed to complete treatment plan; change not sustained; continued inability to care likely to cause neglect/abuse; permanency necessary.	Affirmed: findings support termination under § 41‑3‑609(1)(f) and (2); district court not clearly erroneous.
Duty to consider guardianship sua sponte: Was the court required to consider guardianship as an alternative disposition?	Mother: Guardianship is an available disposition and could secure permanency while preserving parental ties.	State: Dept sought termination; court not required to raise or order guardianship sua sponte absent a party request or Dept consent.	Guardianship is available in YINC cases but court was not required to consider it sua sponte; Mother failed to seek it.

In re A.S., 384 Mont. 41, 373 P.3d 848 (Mont. 2016) (discussing abuse-of-discretion standard for termination decisions)
In re M.V.R., 385 Mont. 448, 384 P.3d 1058 (Mont. 2016) (standards for reviewing findings of fact and conclusions of law)
In re M.C., 389 Mont. 78, 403 P.3d 1266 (Mont. 2017) (appellate review and preservation principles: issues raised first on appeal generally not considered)
In re A.B., 399 Mont. 219, 460 P.3d 405 (Mont. 2020) (noting no statutory permanency preference between guardianship and adoption)