Matter of N.P-S., 2017 MT 105N

Child N.P.-S. (born ~2014) was removed by DPHHS in Sept. 2014; petition alleged parental drug use in child’s presence, neglect, and failure to provide basic needs.
Department initially sought no reunification services for Father, noting a prior involuntary termination of his parental rights to another child.
The District Court ordered a treatment plan for Father in Jan. 2015 requiring CD evaluation, sobriety, drug screening, psychological evaluation, weekly DPHHS contact, safe housing, and consistent visitation.
Father left Montana and had little or no contact with the child from May 2015–Apr. 2016; visitation otherwise was sporadic and treatment-plan compliance was incomplete.
District Court held bifurcated termination hearings (April, May, July 2016); the court declined to consider Father’s post‑April 2016 compliance when deciding termination. Father did not object to that evidentiary ruling.
On July 6, 2016 the District Court terminated Father’s parental rights for failure to complete the treatment plan and concluded his unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DPHHS / District Court’s Argument	Held
Whether refusing to consider Father’s post‑April 2016 treatment compliance deprived Father of due process / was an abuse of discretion	Court’s refusal to consider post‑hearing efforts rendered the proceeding fundamentally unfair; bifurcation objection preserved the claim	Father failed to preserve the due process claim; court had notified parties it would not reopen evidence and did not abuse discretion	Father failed to preserve objection; plain‑error review declined; no reversible error; termination affirmed
Whether factual findings supporting termination (failure to complete plan; unlikely change) are clearly erroneous	Father argued subsequent compliance undercut findings	DPHHS showed prior abandonment, noncompliance, inconsistent contact, and lack of sobriety/housing stability	Court’s findings were not clearly erroneous; termination appropriate

In re J.W., 371 Mont. 98, 307 P.3d 274 (2013) (standard of appellate review for termination of parental rights)
In re M.J., 369 Mont. 247, 296 P.3d 1197 (2013) (abuse of discretion definition)
In re A.K., 379 Mont. 41, 347 P.3d 711 (2015) (standard for reviewing factual findings)
In re K.B., 370 Mont. 254, 301 P.3d 836 (2013) (review of legal conclusions in termination cases)
State v. Griffin, 385 Mont. 1, 386 P.3d 559 (2016) (plain‑error doctrine and discretionary review)
In re H.T., 378 Mont. 206, 343 P.3d 159 (2015) (plain‑error standard in juvenile proceedings)
In re J.S.W., 369 Mont. 12, 303 P.3d 741 (2013) (plain‑error applied sparingly; requires convincing showing of serious mistake)