Matter of M.RC YINC, 2017 MT 202N

Background

Infant M.RC., born April 2015, is an Indian child eligible for Blackfeet Tribe enrollment. DPHHS removed her in July 2015 after incidents of parental intoxication and neglect.
Parents (Mother Kainai-Blood Tribe member; Father Blackfeet member) had unstable housing; both were intoxicated at time of removal; Father arrested for child endangerment.
DPHHS provided a treatment plan for Mother (UA testing, chemical-dependency treatment, parenting classes); Mother sporadically engaged, submitted positive UAs, left inpatient treatment early, and failed to maintain contact or releases.
DPHHS contacted both Tribes and pursued kinship/tribal placement; no qualified tribal or kin placement materialized and neither Tribe intervened.
DPHHS filed a petition to terminate parental rights (TPR). At the January 2017 TPR hearing parents did not appear personally; court received testimony from CPS, ICWA expert, and addiction/mental-health professionals.
District Court found DPHHS made active efforts, Mother’s condition was unlikely to change in a reasonable time, and termination was in the child’s best interest; Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence met ICWA’s heightened proof that continuation of custody would likely result in serious emotional or physical damage	Mother: State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that continuation would likely cause serious harm	State: Testimony and records plainly met the beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard	Court: Evidence (CPS, ICWA expert, addiction counselors) satisfied ICWA standard; affirmed termination
Whether DPHHS made “active efforts” under ICWA to prevent breakup	Mother: DPHHS did not make sufficient active efforts	State: DPHHS provided evaluations, referrals, transportation, contacts, and repeated offers of services	Court: Findings that active efforts were made are supported by evidence; mother’s apathy factored into analysis
Whether Mother’s conduct/condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time (§ 41‑3‑609)	Mother: Court abused discretion; insufficient proof that condition would not improve	State: Mother repeatedly failed treatment and contact; evidence shows unlikelihood of change	Court: Past and present conduct supported finding of unlikely change; termination appropriate
Whether Mother was denied procedural due process by allegedly inadequate findings/conclusions	Mother: Findings were inadequate and thus violated due process	State: Mother received notice, multiple chances to appear, and court issued detailed findings; this is an appeal of findings, not a due process claim	Court: Mother received fundamentally fair procedures; findings sufficient; no due process violation

Key Cases Cited

In re K.B., 301 P.3d 836 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for TPR and ICWA harm standard)
In re M.J., 296 P.3d 1197 (Mont. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard)
In re A.K., 347 P.3d 711 (Mont. 2015) (review of factual findings and parental liberty interests)
In re C.J.M., 280 P.3d 899 (Mont. 2012) (clear‑error standard for factual findings)
In re D.H., 33 P.3d 616 (Mont. 2001) (assessing past and present parental conduct)
In re G.S., 59 P.3d 1063 (Mont. 2002) (beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt burden for active efforts under ICWA)
In re J.S., 321 P.3d 103 (Mont. 2014) (active efforts require more than issuing a plan)
In re A.N., 106 P.3d 556 (Mont. 2005) (parental apathy as factor in active efforts analysis)
In re C.J., 237 P.3d 1282 (Mont. 2010) (notice and opportunity to be heard are key to fairness)
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (ICWA’s objective to protect Indian child–tribe relationships does not bar TPR when statutory standards met)