In the Matter of the Adoption of A.W.S. and K.R.S.

377 Mont. 234, 2014 MT 322 · Supreme Court of Montana · December 2, 2014 · No. DA 14-0101

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court held that an indigent parent facing involuntary termination of parental rights in a stepparent adoption proceeding is entitled to appointed counsel under Montana's Equal Protection Clause. The court reversed the termination order and remanded for a determination of the mother's financial eligibility, appointment of counsel, and a new termination hearing.

Court
Supreme Court of Montana
Writing for the Court
Beth Baker; Mike McGrath; Patricia Cotter; Laurie McKinnon; James Jeremiah Shea
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
December 2, 2014
Docket number
DA 14-0101
Procedural posture
Mother appealed the District Court's order terminating her parental rights in a stepparent-adoption proceeding, arguing that the court erred by failing to appoint counsel and that the termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Standard of review
Constitutional issues are reviewed de novo or plenary.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
A.W. v. J.N.S.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

termination of parental rightsadoptionequal protectionappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

family lawconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Montana's equal-protection guarantee requires appointment of counsel for an indigent parent facing involuntary termination of parental rights in a private stepparent-adoption proceeding.
  2. Whether the District Court's termination decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Holdings

  1. Montana's constitutional guarantee of equal protection requires that counsel be appointed for an indigent parent facing involuntary termination of parental rights under the Adoption Act, because the parent is similarly situated to an indigent parent facing termination in a state-initiated abuse-and-neglect proceeding, where counsel is provided by statute.
  2. The court did not reach the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue because its ruling on Mother's constitutional right to counsel required reversal and a new termination hearing.

Key quotations

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a parent’s interest in custody of a child “is perhaps the oldest of the [recognized] fundamental liberty interests.” (¶ 16)
We conclude that Montana’s right to equal protection requires that counsel be appointed for indigent parents in termination proceedings brought under the Adoption Act. (¶ 26)
We reverse the decision of the District Court and remand for the appointment counsel for Mother, and for a new hearing. (¶ 28)

Factual background

Mother and Father had two children and divorced in 2007. Mother initially had regular unsupervised parenting time, but after her 2009 arrest the District Court restricted her to supervised visitation; her last visit with the children was in August 2010. In 2013, the children's stepmother petitioned to adopt them and terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother appeared at the termination hearing without counsel, stated that she could not afford an attorney, opposed termination, and presented no evidence beyond testimony elicited during the stepmother's case-in-chief.

Procedural history

The District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District held a show-cause hearing on petitions by the children's stepmother to adopt the children and terminate Mother's parental rights. Mother appeared without counsel, stated that she opposed termination, and explained that she lacked money to hire an attorney. The District Court found willful abandonment and other statutory grounds, entered a decree of adoption, and terminated Mother's parental rights. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Remand instructions

The District Court must appoint counsel for Mother if it determines that she is financially eligible and conduct a new hearing on the petition to terminate her parental rights.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…