In the Matter of A.S., Youth in Need of Care

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court considered whether a parent was denied effective assistance of counsel in a proceeding terminating parental rights. The Court held that parents have a due process right to effective assistance of counsel in termination proceedings and established nonexclusive factors for evaluating counsel's effectiveness. Although counsel was ineffective because he was unprepared and failed to subpoena witnesses, the Court affirmed the termination because the parent was not prejudiced.

Holdings

1. A parent has a due-process right to effective assistance of counsel in a proceeding to terminate parental rights.
2. The Strickland v. Washington test does not apply to ineffective-assistance claims arising from parental-rights termination proceedings. Instead, effectiveness is evaluated using nonexclusive benchmark factors concerning counsel's training and experience and counsel's advocacy.
3. Counsel did not effectively represent M.S. at the termination hearing because he failed to prepare after the hearing was rescheduled, despite having been prepared for the earlier hearing date.
4. M.S. was not prejudiced because the witnesses counsel failed to subpoena would have testified about conduct during pregnancy and before A.S.'s removal, which was not relevant to the statutory grounds supporting termination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a parent has a due-process right to effective assistance of counsel in a proceeding to terminate parental rights.
2. What standard should be used to evaluate ineffective-assistance claims in parental-rights termination proceedings.
3. Whether M.S. was prejudiced by appointed counsel's failure to subpoena witnesses and prepare for the termination hearing.

Disposition

affirmed