Matter of M.D., YINC, 2022 MT 34N

Emergency removal of nine-year-old M.D. in Sept. 2019 after reports of Mother’s (K.W.) declining mental health, aggressive behavior, and homicidal ideation; M.D. has remained in foster care since.
Mother diagnosed with schizophrenia after a psychological evaluation; providers recommended consistent medication, which Mother resisted; therapy had limited effect and providers observed functional decline.
Court-ordered treatment plan (Jan. 2020) required safe housing, stable income, a parenting assessment, a psychological evaluation, and that Mother demonstrate her psychological issues were managed to mitigate danger to M.D.
Department provided referrals, supervised visitation, therapy for M.D., and assistance with benefits; Mother refused home visits, did not ensure school attendance, and made minimal progress complying with plan.
Department petitioned to terminate parental rights (Jan. 2021); at the June 2021 termination hearing the court admitted mental-health provider testimony over Mother’s objection and observed Mother’s delusional outbursts; District Court terminated Mother’s parental rights under § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA.
Montana Supreme Court affirmed, finding the District Court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous and that termination was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether termination under §41-3-609(1)(f) was proper (parent unlikely to change within a reasonable time)	Mother could improve with appropriate treatment; termination premature	Mother failed to complete treatment, resisted meds, posed ongoing risk; unlikely to make sufficient progress in a reasonable time	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence Mother unlikely to change sufficiently; termination appropriate
Whether the Department made reasonable reunification efforts	Department failed to tailor the plan to Mother’s disability and should have provided residential psychiatric care	Department provided tailored requirements, referrals, supervised visits, benefit assistance; not required to make herculean efforts	Affirmed: District Court did not err — Department’s efforts were reasonable
Whether testimony of Mother’s mental-health providers was admissible over privilege objection	Testimony should be excluded under mental-health professional-client privilege and evidentiary rules	Disclosure permitted under §50-16-535(1) for Title 41 proceedings and was relevant; even without that testimony record sufficed	Affirmed: admission proper under statute and, regardless, ample other evidence supported termination

In re A.B., 399 Mont. 219, 460 P.3d 405 (standard for assessing likelihood of parental change)
In re R.J.F., 395 Mont. 454, 443 P.3d 387 (abuse of discretion standard for termination)
In re D.B., 339 Mont. 240, 168 P.3d 691 (review standards; Department efforts vs. parental unfitness)
In re K.J.B., 339 Mont. 28, 168 P.3d 629 (procedural standards in termination review)
In re S.C.L., 395 Mont. 127, 437 P.3d 122 (consideration of past and present parental conduct)
In re C.M., 397 Mont. 275, 449 P.3d 806 (reasonable efforts not a separate termination requirement but relevant)
In re X.M., 393 Mont. 210, 429 P.3d 920 (treatment plans must consider disabilities; Department not required to make herculean efforts)
In re K.L., 373 Mont. 421, 318 P.3d 691 (reasonableness standard for reunification efforts)