Matter of X.S. K.S. A.S. I.S.
2017 MT 27N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Father (J.S.) had multiple reports over ~4 years alleging poor parenting, drug use, and unsanitary conditions; he completed evaluations diagnosing bipolar disorder and marijuana abuse in early remission.
- Father entered voluntary service agreements (Oct 2014, Mar 2015) and a court-approved treatment plan (Oct 2015) requiring counseling, random drug tests, safe housing, contact with the Department, and visitation.
- Father repeatedly failed to comply: missed counseling sessions (discharged), failed/ missed drug tests, moved in with his mother and his biological father (a registered sex offender), and had minimal contact with children or the Department.
- Department removed the children (July 2015), sought termination of parental rights (Apr 2016), and a termination hearing was held July 2016.
- District Court found reasonable reunification efforts were made, Father failed the treatment plan, and his conduct was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; parental rights were terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Department’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court violated Father’s due process/fundamental fairness rights by applying §41-3-604(1), MCA, presumption and by brief courtroom inattentiveness | Court applied statutory presumption improperly; court’s hearing difficulty deprived Father of fair process | No presumption was applied; evidence supported proceeding; occasional hearing difficulty did not prejudice Father | No due process violation—court did not rely on statutory presumption and hearing comments did not render proceedings fundamentally unfair |
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence that Father’s conduct was unlikely to change within a reasonable time under §41-3-609(1)(f), MCA | Father argued recent re-engagement and Department re‑engagement could allow change; last-minute efforts showed likely change | Father had long history of noncompliance despite many efforts and ample time; recent limited efforts were insufficient | Court did not abuse discretion; substantial credible evidence supported finding father unlikely to change within a reasonable time |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of C.J., 237 P.3d 1282 (Mont. 2010) (standard of review and fundamental‑fairness protections in termination proceedings)
- In the Matter of B.W.S., 330 P.3d 467 (Mont. 2014) (constitutional review of parental‑rights termination proceedings)
- In the Matter of C.W.E., 364 P.3d 1238 (Mont. 2016) (past conduct relevant to likelihood of change standard)
- In the Matter of M.T., 51 P.3d 1141 (Mont. 2002) (past conduct must inform prediction of future change)
- In the Matter of A.S.A., 852 P.2d 127 (Mont. 1993) (parent must not be placed at unfair disadvantage in termination proceedings)
- In the Matter of the Custody and Parental Rights of N.J., 819 P.2d 166 (Mont. 1991) (length of time given to comply with treatment plan can support termination)