k ^[4] o f M on t ane A PP E A L F R O M : D i s t r i c t C ou r t o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a nd F o r t h e C oun t y o f Y e ll o w s t on e , C a u s e N o . DN 19 - 88 H ono r a b l e M i c h ae l G . M o s e s , P r e s i d i ng J udg e

C OUN S EL O F R E C O R D : F o r A pp e ll a n t: T a r yn G r a y , D r i s c o ll H a t h a w a y L a w G r oup , M i ss ou l a , M on t a n a F o r A pp e ll ee : A u s ti n K nud s e n , M on t a n a A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l , K a ti e F . S c hu l z , A ss i s t a n t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , M on t a n a S c o tt D . T w it o , Y e ll o w s t on e C oun t y A tt o r n e y , S c o tt P e d e r s on , D e pu t y C oun t y A tt o r n e y , B illi ng s , M on t a n a

S ub m i t t e d on B r i e f s : J u l y 2 8 , 2 02 1 D ec i d e d : S e p t e m b e r 7 , 2021 F il e d : C l e r k *2 J u s ti ce I ng r i d G u s t a f s on d e li v e r e d t h e O p i n i on o f t h e C ou r t . ¶ 1 P u r s u a n t t o S ec ti on I , P a r a g r a ph 3 ( c ) , M on t a n a S up r e m e C ou r t I n t e r n a l O p e r a ti ng R u l e s , t h i s ca s e i s d ec i d e d by m e m o r a ndu m op i n i on a nd s h a ll no t b e c it e d a nd do e s no t s e r v e a s p r ece d e n t . I t s ca s e titl e , ca u s e nu m b e r , a nd d i s po s iti on s h a ll b e i n c l ud e d i n t h i s C ou r t ' s qu a r t e r l y li s t o f non c it a b l e ca s e s pub li s h e d i n t h e P ac i f i c R e po r t e r a nd M on t a n a R e po r t s . ¶ 2 K . M . ( M o t h e r) a pp ea l s fr o m t h e F i nd i ng s o f F ac t , C on c l u s i on s o f L a w , O r d e r T e r m i n a ti ng P a r e n t a l R i gh t s i ss u e d M a y 20 , 2021 , by t h e T h i r t ee n t h J ud i c i a l D i s t r i c t C ou r t , Y e ll o w s t on e C oun t y , t e r m i n a ti ng M o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i gh t s t o K . E . R . ( C h il d ) . W e a ff i r m . ¶ 3 T h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b li c H ea lt h a nd H u m a n S e r v i ce s , C h il d a nd F a m il y S e r v i ce s D i v i s i on ( t h e D e p a r t m e n t ) b eca m e i nvo l v e d w it h t h i s f a m il y a t t h e ho s p it a l s ho r tl y a f t e r M o t h e r g a v e b i r t h t o h e r s ec ond c h il d . ' A t t h e ti r n e M o t h e r ' s s ec ond c h il d w a s bo r n , C h il d w a s i n t h e ca r e o f h e r r n a t e r n a l g r a nd m o t h e r ( G r a nd m o t h e r) a nd h a d b ee n i n h e r ca r e f o r s e v e r a l m on t h s p r i o r . ¶ 4 A S ho w C a u s e h ea r i ng w a s h e l d M a r c h 27 , 2019 , w h e r e M o t h e r d i d no t c on t e s t t h e r e li e f r e qu e s t e d by t h e D e p a r t m e n t . C h il d w a s a d j ud i ca t e d a Y ou t h i n N ee d o f C a r e ( Y I N C ) on M a y 2 2 , 201 9 . T h e c o u r t a pp r o v e d M o t h e r ' s P h a s e I T r ea t m e n t P l a n on M a y 2 2 , 20 19 , 1 T h e s ec ond c h il d i s no t a t i ss u e i n t h i s ca s e . A t t h e ti m e o f d e li v e r y , M o t h e r h a d m a d e a rr a ng e m e n t s t o p l ace t h a t c h il d f o r a dop ti on t h r ough L u t h e r a n S o c i a l S e r v i ce s . T h a t a dop ti on h a s s i n c e o cc u rr e d .

2 *3 w h i c h w a s f il e d A p r il 1 , 2019 . A l m o s t a y ea r l a t e r , on M a r c h 13 , 2020 , t h e D e p a r t m e n t f il e d a p e titi on s ee k i n g t e r m i n a ti on o f M o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i gh t s . ¶ 5 M o t h e r c on t e s t e d t e r m i n a ti on o f h e r p a r e n t a l r i gh t s a nd h ea r i ng on t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s t e r m i n a ti on p e titi on w a s h e l d A ugu s t 26 , 2020 . A t t h e h ea r i ng , M o t h e r b a s i ca ll y a d m itt e d s h e h a d no t s u c c e ss f u ll y c o m p l e t e d h e r t r ea t m e n t p l a n bu t r a t h e r s ough t a dd iti on a l ti m e t o w o r k h e r t r ea t r n e n t p l a n . A t t h e e nd o f t h e h ea r i ng , t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t ac kno w l e dg e d t h a t M o t h e r h a d c o m p l e t e d s o m e o f h e r t r ea t m e n t p l a n t a s k s , h a d w o r k e d h a r d ov e r t h e p r ec e d i n g e i gh t w ee k s , a nd t h a t h e r c o n d i t i on h a d c h a ng e d s l i gh t l y f o r t h e b e tt e r . T h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t w e i gh e d w h e t h e r , und e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n ce s w h e r e M o t h e r h a d s ho w n s o m e r ece n t i m p r ov e d c h a ng e , it w a s i n C h il d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t t o s ec u r e p e r m a n e n c y w it h t e r m i n a ti on o f M o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i gh t s o r t o p r ov i d e M o t h e r a dd iti on a l ti m e t o w o r k h e r t r ea t m e n t p l a n . U lti m a t e l y , t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t r u l e d fr o m t h e b e n c h , t e r m i n a ti ng M o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i gh t s . ¶ 6 W e r e v i e w a c ou r t ' s d ec i s i on t o t e r m i n a t e p a r e n t a l r i gh t s f o r a bu s e o f d i s c r e ti on — w h e t h e r t h e c ou r t ac t e d a r b it r a r il y , w it hou t c on s c i e n ti ou s j udg m e n t , o r e x cee d e d t h e bound s o f r ea s on , r e s u lti ng i n s ub s t a n ti a l i n j u s ti ce . I n r e A . S ., 2016 M T 156 , ¶ 11 , 384 M on t . 41 , 373 P . 3d 848 . W e r e v i e w a d i s t r i c t c ou r t ' s f i nd i ng s o f f ac t f o r c l ea r e rr o r a nd c on c l u s i on s o f l a w f o r c o rr ec t n e ss . I n r e M V R ., 2016 M T 309 , 1123 , 38 5 M on t . 448 , 384 P . 3d 1058 . ¶ 7 M o t h e r a ss e r t s t h e D e p a r t m e n t f a il e d t o p r ov e by c l ea r a nd c onv i n c i ng e v i d e n ce t h a t t e r r n i n a t i o n o f M o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s w a s i n C h il d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . S h e a ss e r t s r a t h e r t h e r e

3 *4 was clear and convincing evidence that Child's best interests would be served by guardianship, rather than terrnination of her parental rights. The State counters that Mother failed to suggest at any time throughout the pendency of the case that the Department should pursue guardianship with Grandrnother. ¶8 Generally, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal as it is fundamentally unfair to fault a trial court for failing to correctly consider an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider. In re MC., 2017 MT 252, ¶ 14, 389 Mont. 78, 403 P.3d 1266. We agree with Mother that a court may order guardianship as a disposition pursuant to § 41-3-444, MCA.2 We agree with Mother that adoption does not necessarily offer safer or better well-being outcomes for children when compared to children who exited into guardianship and there is no statutory permanency preference between guardianship and adoption. See In re A.B., 2020 MT 64, ¶ 52, 399 Mont. 219, 460 P.3d 405 (Gustafson, J., concurring). While guardianship may be an available disposition in an abuse or neglect proceeding, it is not what the Department sought here. The Department filed a petition seeking termination of Mother's parental rights. Mother contested it, arguing she should be given more time to complete her treatrnent plan to effectuate sustained change. Mother acknowledged she had not completed the tasks of her treatment ^[2] Pursuant to § 41-3-444, MCA, guardianship is an available disposition if a child has been adjudicated a YINC, the Department has rnade reasonable reunification efforts, the child has lived with the potential guardian in a family setting, termination of parental rights is not in the child's best interests or parental rights have been terminated, but adoption is not in the child's best interests, and the Department has consented to the guardianship. *5 plan and requested, in light of the recent gains she had made, the District Court permit her additional tirne to work her treatment plan. Although Mother's counsel made inquiry of Grandmother at the termination hearing as to whether she would be willing to be a guardian, that was the extent to which Mother raised the issue of guardianship. She did not file any petition, motion, or written request that the court consider guardianship. She did not assert she had sought consent from the Department to a guardianship and said consent had been unreasonably denied. In fact, there is nothing in the record to suggest Mother, or Grandmother, sought consent of the Department to a guardianship or that the Department in any way considered the alternative of guardianship. When the court expressed that it had to determine if it was in Child's best interest to secure permanency through terrnination with adoption or delay permanency to permit Mother more time to work her treatrnent plan, Mother did not suggest guardianship as an alternative—a means of securing permanency while still permitting Mother incentive to continue to improve her condition and retain her parental rights. As such, we agree with the State that Mother failed to preserve for appeal her claim that it was in Child's best interest to accomplish a guardianship with Grandmother rather than terminate her parental rights.3 ^[3] Appellant counsel's apt briefing on the availability of guardianship as a disposition and emerging data that adoption does not necessarily offer safer or better well-being outcomes for children who exited to adoption compared to those who exited to guardianship cannot overcome Mother's failure to raise this issue below. *6 ¶9 The record supports the District Court's termination of Mother's parental rights pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f) and -609(2), MCA. Child was adjudicated a YINC on May 22, 2019.4 See § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA. An appropriate treatment plan was approved by the court, which Mother did not successfully complete. See § 41-3-609(1)(f)(i), MCA. Although the conduct rendering Mother unable to parent had been ameliorated to some extent in the approximate eight weeks prior to the termination hearing, Mother had not shown sustained change and her condition continued to render her unable to give Child adequate care for the foreseeable future. See § 46-3-609(1)(f)(ii), MCA. This would likely result in continued abuse or neglect had Child been returned to Mother's care at that time. See § 46-3-609(2), MCA. ¶1 0 Mother asserts the District Court erred in concluding it was in Child's best interest to terminate the parent-child relationship between Mother and Child as there was evidence presented that Child had a strong bond with Mother and it was in Child's best interest to maintain a relationship with Mother. Mother is correct the record supports it is in Child's best interest to maintain a relationship with Mother. The record also supports it is in Child's best interest to maintain her relationship with Grandmother, as well as maintain the stability of the home and care Grandmother has provided throughout Child's entire life. ^[4] Several months before the Department became involved with the family, Mother and Grandmother agreed Child should reside with Grandmother as Mother had relapsed and was experiencing housing instability. Although Child was residing in a safe placement with Grandmother on a full-time basis, Mother did not contest adjudication of Child as a YINC. *7 T h e r ec o r d s uppo r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t ' s c on c l u s i on t h a t t h e r e l a ti on s h i p w it h M o t h e r , a s w e ll a s t h e r e l a ti on s h i p w it h G r a nd m o t h e r a nd t h e s t a b ilit y o f ca r e G r a nd m o t h e r p r ov i d e s ca n b e acc o m p li s h e d t h r ough t e r m i n a ti on o f M o t h e r ' s r i gh t s w it h a dop ti on by G r a nd m o t h e r . G r a nd m o t h e r i s c on ce r n e d no t on l y f o r t h e ca r e a nd w e ll - b e i ng o f C h il d bu t a l s o f o r M o t h e r . U nd e r t h e un i qu e f ac t s o f t h i s ca s e , G r a nd r no t h e r i s i n a po s iti on t o r n ee t C h il d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s by b e i ng a b l e t o s a f e l y m a i n t a i n a r e l a ti on s h i p b e t w ee n C h il d a nd M o t h e r a s M o t h e r c on ti nu e s t o a dd r e ss h e r s ub s t a n ce a bu s e a nd r n e n t a l h ea lt h i ss u e s , w h il e a l s o p r ov i d i n g C h i l d w i t h t h e c r i ti c a l s t a b il it y a nd p e r m a n e n c y s h e n e e d s . 5 1111 W e h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t o d ec i d e t h i s ca s e pu r s u a n t t o S ec ti on I , P a r a g r a ph 3 ( c ) o f ou r I n t e r n a l O p e r a ti ng R u l e s , w h i c h p r ov i d e s f o r m e r no r a ndu r n op i n i on s . I n t h e op i n i on o f t h e C ou r t , t h e ca s e p r e s e n t s a qu e s ti on c on t r o ll e d by s e ttl e d l a w o r by t h e c l ea r a pp li ca ti on o f a pp li ca b l e s t a nd a r d s o f r e v i e w . ¶ 12 A ff i r m e d .

J u s ti ce W e c on c u r : h i e f J u s ti ce e

94

M J U L _ ^[5] W h il e t h i s m a y a l s o h a v e b ee n po ss i b l e t o ac h i e v e t h r ough a gu a r d i a n s h i p , t h e D i s t r i c t C ou r t w a s no t r e qu i r e d t o s u a s pon t e c o n s i d e r gu a r d i a n s h i p a s a n a lt e r n a ti v e t o t e r m i n a ti on . T h e c ou r t ' s f i nd i ng s o f f ac t w e r e no t c l ea r l y e rr on e ou s a nd it s c on c l u s i on s o f l a w w e r e c o rr ec t .

7 *8 g-- g , ,fs Justices