Summary
The Montana Supreme Court reversed an order terminating C.B.’s parental rights because the district court failed to make the specific findings required under § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA. The court held that the statutory presumption favoring termination after extended foster care does not replace the State’s burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, noncompliance with or failure of an appropriate treatment plan and that the parent’s unfitness is unlikely to change within a reasonable time. On remand, the court directed consideration of whether the treatment plan accommodated C.B.’s cognitive disabilities and included reasonable deadlines and support.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court applied the correct statutory criteria in terminating C.B.'s parental rights.
- What statutory criteria the District Court must apply on remand, including the requirements for an appropriate treatment plan and the determination that the parent's conduct or condition is unlikely to change within a reasonable time.
Holdings
- The District Court erred by relying on the foster-care presumption and the State's reasonable efforts instead of making specific findings under Montana Code § 41-3-609(1)(f) that C.B. failed to comply with or succeed at an appropriate treatment plan and that her conduct or condition rendering her unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.
- An appropriate treatment plan must account for the particular problems facing the parent and child, must be supported by clear and convincing evidence of appropriateness, and must contain reasonable timelines or deadlines. When a parent has a disability, the plan must anticipate or be modified to address the parent's special needs, and the State has a duty to provide appropriate support.
- The District Court must determine, based on the statutory factors, whether the parent's conduct or condition rendering the parent unfit is unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The foster-care presumption may be considered at this stage, but it cannot alone support termination.
Key quotations
“The District Court’s reliance on this presumption impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to C.B.” (246)
“In light of the fundamental liberty interest a parent has in the custody of their children, due process requires the inclusion of a timeline for completion of goals and tasks in a treatment plan.” (248)
“The District Court should have inquired whether the State had shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that C.B. failed to comply or succeed with an appropriate, court-ordered treatment plan, and (2) that her conduct rendering her an unfit parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.” (250)
Factual background
C.B.'s children became involved with Child and Family Services because of C.B.'s drug-related problems and an abusive boyfriend, and the children were later removed from her home. C.B. participated in rehabilitation, treatment, and therapy, but was incarcerated for a parole violation before reunification occurred. The treatment plan was approved without timelines or deadlines, and after a neuropsychological evaluation diagnosed C.B. with cognitive dysfunction, learning disabilities, and psychological conditions, the plan was not modified to address her needs. The District Court terminated her parental rights less than six months after approving the plan.
Procedural history
The District Court adjudicated C.B.'s children youths in need of care, approved a treatment plan, and later terminated C.B.'s parental rights. The court relied on the statutory presumption favoring termination after fifteen of the preceding twenty-two months in foster care and on the State's reasonable efforts, but did not make the specific findings required by the termination statute. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The District Court must apply § 41-3-609(1)(f), determine whether C.B. failed to comply with or succeed at an appropriate court-ordered treatment plan and whether her unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time, and make specific factual findings. In evaluating the plan's appropriateness, the court must consider whether it addressed C.B.'s disabilities, including through reasonable deadlines and legally required support.