Title: MATTER OF R B

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 8 4 - 2 2 4 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA IN THE MATTER OF R.B., J R . , a Y o u t h i n N e e d of C a r e . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and for t h e C o u n t y of C a s c a d e , T h e H o n o r a b l e Joel G. R o t h , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t s : B r e t t C. A s s e l s t i n e , G r e a t Falls, M o n t a n a Jeffrey T. P ' l c A l l i s t e r , G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a Stephen H a g e r m a n , G r e a t Falls, M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : M i k e G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , f i e l e n a , M o n t a n a J. Fred B o u r d e a u , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a ( B a r b a r a B e l l , D e p u t y ) S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : A p r i l 4 , 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : J u l y 2 5 , 1 9 8 5 F i l e d : JtJl, 2 1985 C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. The f a t h e r o f R.B., Jr., a p p e a l s from an o r d e r o f t h e Cascade County District Court, which d e c l a r e d R.B., Jr., a youth i n need o f c a r e and a youth abandoned by h i s f a t h e r . Permanent custody o f R.B., Jr., i n c l u d i n g a u t h o r i t y t o con- s e n t t o h i s adoption, was granted t o t h e Department o f S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS). W e reverse t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r t e r m i n a t i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s and remand t h e c a s e f o r f i n d i n g s and f u r t h e r proceedings. The i s s u e s presented on appeal a r e : 1. Was t h e r e a proper f a c t u a l and s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e conclusion by t h e District Court t h a t t h e f a t h e r aban- doned h i s son? 2. Was t h e r e a b a s i s f o r concluding t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s should be terminated because o f a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t p l a n and f o r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e conduct o f t h e f a t h e r rendering him u n f i t i s unlike- l y t o change? The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t h e f a t h e r and mother w e r e married i n 1977. R.B., Jr., was born on December 1, 1978. The p a r e n t s w e r e divorced on January 10, 1980. The mother was awarded s o l e custody o f t h e c h i l d . The f a t h e r was re- q u i r e d t o pay support o f $125 p e r month. On J u l y 18, 1980, t h e District Court r e t u r n e d j o i n t custody o f t h e c h i l d t o t h e mother and f a t h e r . The c o u r t ordered t h a t , notwithstanding t h e d i v o r c e , t h e f a t h e r be allowed t o remain i n t h e home s o long a s it was a g r e e a b l e t o t h e mother. The c o u r t f u r t h e r ordered t h a t t h e f a t h e r r e f r a i n from e x c e s s i v e d r i n k i n g , r e f r a i n from p h y s i c a l l y abusing o r t h r e a t e n i n g t h e mother o r t h e c h i l d , and cooperate w i t h SRS. I n September 1981, t h e f a t h e r was i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e Montana S t a t e Prison. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n t i c i p a t e d being paroled i n January 1985. The record does n o t show i f t h a t p a r o l e h a s taken p l a c e . SRS f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r temporary custody o f t h e c h i l d on June I , 1982. The mother v o l u n t a r i l y consented t o g r a n t - i n g SRS temporary custody. I n June 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court awarded custody f o r s i x months t o SRS. The mother regained custody i n November 1982. Following s i g n i f i c a n t problems i n a f f o r d i n g proper c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d , SRS took t h e c h i l d from t h e mother and placed him i n f o s t e r c a r e . O n February 1 4 , 1983, SRS again f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r temporary custody, which was granted. The boy has remained i n f o s t e r c a r e s i n c e t h a t t i m e . O n August 1 0 , 1983, SRS f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody o f t h e c h i l d . A hearing was held on December 12 and 13, 1983. The c h i l d was 5 y e a r s o l d a t t h a t t i m e . The key f i n d i n g s o f f a c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e a s follows: "4. The y o u t h ' s p a r e n t s were divorced i n 1979. They had l i v e d t o g e t h e r sporadi- c a l l y over a f i v e (5) y e a r period ending i n September 1981. Both p a r t i e s drank t o excess and . . . [ t h e f a t h e r ] o f t e n b e a t up [ t h e mother] i n f r o n t o f t h e youth which was very d i s t r e s s i n g t o . . . [ t h e youth]. [The f a t h e r ] . . . worked about twelve months d u r i n g t h i s period. "5. [The f a t h e r ] . . . h a s n o t supported t h e c h i l d s i n c e September, 1981 and has made no a t t e m p t t o maintain c o n t a c t w i t h t h e youth o r i n q u i r e a s t o t h e y o u t h ' s whereabouts o r c o n d i t i o n u n t i l [ t h e f a t h e r ] . . . was aware t h a t S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s had p e t i t i o n e d t h e Court t o t e r m i n a t e [ t h e f a t h e r ' s ] . . . r i g h t s . " The c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e f a t h e r had abandoned t h e chil-d, and t h a t both t h e mother and t h e f a t h e r w e r e u n f i t p a r e n t s . The mother does n o t d i s p u t e t h e conclusion by t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t she was an u n f i t p a r e n t . There i s evidence i n t h e record t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e f a t h e r had some p a r e n t i n g s k i l l s p r i o r t o h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n , b u t t h a t t h e s e w e r e l i m i t e d . The record demonstrates t h a t t h e f a t h e r had only worked approximately twelve months d u r i n g t h e f i v e y e a r s preceding t h e hearing. A s o c i a l worker testi- f i e d t h a t she had seen t h e f a t h e r and son i n t e r a c t and was r e l u c t a n t t o see t h e f a t h e r regain custody. Perhaps most s i g n i f i c a n t was t h e evidence t h a t t h e f a t h e r had n o t had any c o n t a c t with t h e c h i l d f o r approximately t h r e e y e a r s , b u t we must keep i n mind t h a t t h e f a t h e r was i n c a r c e r a t e d from September 1981 through 1984. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he wrote from p r i s o n i n an attempt t o c o n t a c t h i s son and t o f i n d o u t how he was doing. When asked i f t h e f a t h e r had made any a t t e m p t t o see h i s son, t h e mother t e s t i f i e d a s follows: " Y e s . H e asked m e t h e names o f . . . [our s o n ' s ] f o s t e r p a r e n t s , and I t a l k e d t o Randy Koutnik [an SRS s o c i a l worker] about it, and he asked m e n o t t o g i v e o u t t h a t information, and s o I wrote him and s a i d I was n o t allowed t o g i v e t h a t o u t . " The record does n o t d i s c l o s e whether t h e District Court had t h i s testimony i n mind a t t h e t i m e it concluded t h a t t h e f a t h e r had made no a t t e m p t t o maintain c o n t a c t w i t h t h e youth. W e a r e d i s t u r b e d by t h e apparent a t t e m p t t o keep t h e f a t h e r from e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n t a c t w i t h h i s c h i l d . The f a t h e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he would l i k e t o have custody o f h i s son a f t e r h i s p a r o l e . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t w h i l e i n p r i s o n , he had been a t r u s t e e and had acquired t h e s k i l l s o f a lumberjack. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had received h i s GED, had gone through a course o f t r e a t m e n t f o r alcoholism, and attended Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s wil.ling t o a c c e p t family counseling and would l i k e t o leave t h e c h i l d with h i s sister f o r approxi- mately s i x months while he i s making t h e t r a n s i t i o n from p r i s o n t o school work. W e have a.lso considered t h e evidence and t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e District Court regarding t h e e x c e s s i v e d r i n k i n g on t h e p a r t o f t h e f a t h e r , h i s v i o l e n t conduct towards b o t h t h e mother and t h e c h i l d , and h i s f a i l u r e t o support t h e c h i l d . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court has r u l e d t h a t t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s ' r i g h t t o c a r e and custody o f t h e i r c h i l d i s a "fundamental l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t " t o be p r o t e c t e d by fundamen- t a l l y f a i r procedures. "The fundamental l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t o f n a t u r a l p a r e n t s i n t h e c a r e , custody, and management o f t h e i r c h i l d does n o t evapo- r a t e simply because t h e y have n o t been model p a r e n t s o r have l o s t temporary custody o f t h e i r c h i l d t o t h e S t a t e . Even when blood r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e s t r a i n e d , p a r e n t s r e t a i n a v i t a l i n t e r e s t i n preventing t h e i r r e t r i e v a b l e d e s t r u c - t i o n o f t h e i r family l i f e . I f anything, persons faced w i t h forced d i s s o l u t i o n of t h e i r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s have a more c r i t i - c a l need f o r procedural p r o t e c t i o n s than do t h o s e r e s i s t i n g s t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o ongoing family a f f a i r s . When t h e S t a t e moves t o d e s t r o y weakened f a m i l i a l bonds, it must provide t h e p a r e n t s w i t h fundamentally f a i r procedures." Santosky v. Kramer (1982), 455 U.S. 745, 753-54. The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e based o u r Parent-Child Lega 1 R e l a t i o n s h i p Termination A c t o f 1981, S S 41-3-601 through 41-3-612, MCA, on a s i m i l a r Colorado a c t . See Matter o f C.L.R. (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 685 P.2d 926, 4 1 St.Rep. 1436. Constru- i n g t h e Colorado a c t , a Colorado c o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t : "The termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i s a d e c i s i o n o f paramount g r a v i t y , and t h e s t a t e must e x e r c i s e extreme c a u t i o n i n t e r m i n a t i n g such r i g h t s . . . Hence, s t r i c t compliance by t h e t r i a l c o u r t with t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f a p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p i s an a b s o l u t e n e c e s s i t y . . . A t r i a l c o u r t must adequately a d d r e s s and r e s o l v e each s p e c i f i c requirement f o r t e r m i n a t i o n . . . Such d e t a i l e d r e s o l u t i o n o f a l l i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l t o a d e c r e e of termina- t i o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s e n s t h e r i s k t h a t a parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be severed erroneously." People In I n t e r e s t Of M.C.C. (Colo.App. 1982), 641 P.2d 306, 308 ( c i t a t i o n s omitted) . W e emphasize t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i n Montana o f a natu- r a l p a r e n t ' s r i g h t t o c a r e and custody o f a c h i l d i s a funda- mental l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t , which must be p r o t e c t e d by fundamentally f a i r procedures. W e approve and adopt t h e Colorado c o u r t ' s r a t i o n a l e t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t must adequately a d d r e s s each s p e c i f i c requirement o f t h e s t a t u t e s p r i o r t o t e r m i n a t i o n . Was t h e r e a proper f a c t u a l and s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e conclusion by t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e f a t h e r abandoned h i s son? S e c t i o n 41-3-609 (1) (b) , MCA, provides t h a t : " (1) The c o u r t may o r d e r a t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e parent-child lega 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p upon a f i n d i n g t h a t : " ( b ) The c h i l d has been abandoned by h i s p a r e n t s a s set f o r t h i n 41-3-102 ( 3 ) (d) ; 11 . . . Section 41-3-102 (3) (d) , MCA, s t a t e s t h a t a p a r e n t aban- dons a c h i l d by: ". . . l e a v i n g him under circumstances t h a t make reasonable t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e p a r e n t o r o t h e r person does n o t i n t e n d t o resume c a r e o f t h e c h i l d i n t h e f u t u r e o r by w i l l f u l l y s u r r e n d e r i n g p h y s i c a l custo- dy f o r a period o f s i x months and d u r i n g t h a t period does not m a n i f e s t t o t h e c h i l d and t h e person having p h y s i c a l custody o f t h e c h i l d a f i r m i n t e n t i o n t o resume p h y s i c a l custody o r t o make perma- nent l e g a l arrangements f o r t h e c a r e of t h e c h i l d . . ." Finding of f a c t no. 5 by t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had not supported t h e c h i l d and had made no attempt e i t h e r t o maintain c o n t a c t o r t o i n q u i r e a s t o t h e y o u t h ' s whereabouts o r c o n d i t i o n . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s testi- mony t h a t t h e f a t h e r asked f o r t h e a d d r e s s o f t h e c h i l d ' s f o s t e r p a r e n t s . Unfortunately, t h e record i s n o t c l e a r a s t o when t h e f a t h e r made t h e i n q u i r y o r when t h e SRS s o c i a l worker i n s t r u c t e d t h e mother n o t t o r e v e a l t h e c h i l d ' s where- abouts t o t h e f a t h e r . T h i s testimony appears c r i t i c a l t o a determination o f abandonment s i n c e it c o n t r a d i c t s t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o make any a t t e m p t t o i n q u i r e a s t o h i s s o n ' s whereabouts o r c o n d i t i o n . The record shows t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y f i l e d a mo- t i o n , a s k i n g t h a t t h e m a t t e r be remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r supplemental proceedings. SRS i n d i c a t e d t h a t it expected t o p r e s e n t testimony t h a t t h e f a t h e r had b e e n i n a p r e - r e l e a s e c e n t e r i n B u t t e s i n c e January 1984 and t h a t he had made no c o n t a c t w i t h SRS. Although t h e motion t o remand was denied, t h i s i s a f u r t h e r reason f o r allowing t h e D i s - t r i c t Court t o r e c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r . On t h e i s s u e o f abandonment, we remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions i n l i g h t o f t h e s p e c i f i c requirements o f $ 41-3-102(3) ( d ) , MCA. Was t h e r e a b a s i s f o r concluding t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s should be terminated because o f a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h an a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t plan and f o r f i n d i n g t h a t t h e conduct o f t h e f a t h e r rendering him u n f i t was un- l i k e l y t o change? Section 41-3-609 (1) ( c ) , MCA., provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : I' (1) The c o u r t may o r d e r a t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d I.ega 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p upon a f i n d i n g t h a t : " ( c ) The c h i l d i s an a d j u d i c a t e d youth i n need o f c a r e and both o f t h e f o l l o w i n g e x i s t : " (i) An a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t p l a n t h a t h a s been approved by t h e c o u r t h a s n o t been complied w i t h by t h e p a r e n t s o r h a s n o t been s u c c e s s f u l ; and " (ii) The conduct o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p a r e n t s r e n d e r i n g them u n f i t i s u n l i k e l y t o change w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . " T h i s Court h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y r u l e d t h a t t h e r i g h t s o f p a r e n t s o f a youth i n need of c a r e c a n n o t b e t e r m i n a t e d u n l e s s t h e p a r e n t s have f a i l e d t o comply w i t h a court-approved t r e a t m e n t p l a n a s r e q u i r e d under t h e s t a t u t e . I n M a t t e r o f C.L.R. (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 685 P.2d 926, 928, 4 1 St.Rep. 1436, 1.439, w e s t a t e d : "[Wle sound a s t e r n warning t h a t t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t p e r m i t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s w i t h o u t f i r s t e s t a b l i s h - i n g a t r e a t m e n t p l a n u n l e s s a showing o f f a c t s c l e a r l y p r o v e s t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of any workable p l a n . " The r e c o r d d o e s n o t set f o r t h s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o con- c l u d e whether o r n o t implementation o f a t r e a t m e n t p l a n was a t t e m p t e d o r i s even f e a s i b l e i n t h i s c a s e . The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t he h a s changed s u f f i c i e n t l y s o t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court should approve an a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t p l a n f o r him. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court changes i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r h a s abandoned t h e c h i l d , t h e n w e r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e District Court w i l l proceed under § 41-3-609 (1) (c) (i) , MCA, t o determine whether an a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t p l a n can b e worked o u t . W e r e v e r s e t h e termination o r d e r and remand t h i s cause t o t h e District Court f o r such f u r t h e r proceedings a s it W e concur: