In re N.A.

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the termination of Steven’s parental rights to B.A. and A.A. based on his failure to complete the court-ordered treatment plan and the conclusion that his severe mental illness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Court also upheld the denial of Steven’s request for post-termination visitation because the District Court determined that visitation was not in the children’s best interests.

Holdings

1. Partial or substantial compliance with a treatment plan is insufficient, and the District Court properly found that Steven failed to comply with the treatment plan because he did not maintain required visitation or weekly contact with his social worker and did not successfully complete recommended counseling and treatment.
2. The District Court did not err in terminating Steven's parental rights because substantial evidence established that his severe bipolar disorder and related mental illness rendered him unfit to parent and was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by denying Steven post-termination visitation because Montana law permits the court to enter other orders in the child's best interests, and the evidence supported the conclusion that continued supervised visitation was not in B.A.'s or A.A.'s best interests.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred in terminating Steven's parental rights for failure to comply with the treatment plan and because the condition rendering him unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by denying Steven post-termination visitation with B.A. and A.A.

Disposition

affirmed