No. DA 06-0123 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2006 MT 157N 

_______________________________________ 

IN RE THE MATTER OF 

R.L.T. and M.A.T., 

 Youths in Need of Care. 

______________________________________ 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, 

 In and for the County of Toole, Cause No. DN 04-002 

 The Honorable Marc G. Buyske, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

 For Appellant: 

William E. Hunt, Jr., Hunt Law Firm, Shelby, Montana 

 For Respondent: 

Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant 

Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Merle Raph, Toole County Attorney, Shelby, Montana 

____________________________________ 

Submitted on Briefs: May 23, 2006 

 Decided: July 12, 2006 

Filed: 

______________________________________ 

Clerk 
Justice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal 

Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be 

cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme 

Court and its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in 

this Court’s quarterly list of nonciteable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and 

Montana Reports. 

¶2 J.T. appeals from an order of the Ninth Judicial District Court, Toole County, 

terminating his parental rights to his children, R.L.T. and M.A.T. He argues that the 

District Court abused its discretion by not ordering at least some minimal contact 

between him and the children, and by failing to provide him with a fundamentally fair 

hearing. We affirm. 

¶3 J.T. killed a woman by shooting her in the head. R.L.T. and M.A.T. witnessed the 

shooting, as well as J.T.’s attempt to hide the body. J.T. pled guilty to homicide in 

Oklahoma, and is currently serving a life sentence in prison. 

¶4 The Department of Public Health and Human Services took custody of R.L.T. and 

M.A.T. following J.T.’s arrest, and petitioned for permanent legal custody of the children 

with the right to consent to adoption. 

¶5 The District Court held a termination hearing on October 27, 2005. J.T. could not 

participate by telephone conference. However, his counsel declined the District Court’s 

offer to recess the proceeding from time to time and allow him to contact with J.T. when 

he deemed it necessary. 

 2
¶6 The District Court terminated the parent-child legal relationship existing between 

J.T. and the children, and denied J.T.’s request for continued contact with them. This 

appeal followed. 

¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of 

our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for 

memorandum opinions. 

¶8 This Court reviews a district court’s ultimate decision to terminate parental rights 

for abuse of discretion. In re A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 29, 331 Mont. 208, ¶ 29, 130 P.3d 

619, ¶ 29. To terminate parental rights, the State must provide a fundamentally fair 

procedure which includes representation by counsel and an equal opportunity to both 

present evidence and scrutinize the State’s evidence. In re M.W. and C.S., 2001 MT 78, ¶ 

25, 305 Mont. 80, ¶ 25, 23 P.3d 206, ¶ 25. 

¶9 J.T. argues that the District Court abused its discretion by failing to order contact 

between him and the children. He argues that continued contact would be in their best 

interests pursuant to § 41-3-609(3), MCA, which requires that, in terminating the parentchild relationship, the court give primary consideration to the physical, mental, and 

emotional conditions and needs of the child. 

¶10 Section 41-3-609(3), MCA, does not require contact between children and a parent 

whose rights have been terminated. Parental rights may be terminated if the parent has a 

history of violent behavior or is subject to a judicially ordered long-term confinement. 

Sections 41-3-609(2)(b), (d), MCA. There is no question that J.T. meets both these 

criteria for termination of his parental rights. The District Court did not abuse its 

 3
discretion in determining that contact with their father was not in the best interest of the 

children. 

¶11 J.T.’s argument that the District Court failed to provide him a fundamentally fair 

hearing also fails. The courtroom in which the hearing was held lacked the capacity for 

J.T.’s presence by telephone. However, the presiding judge offered to take a recess from 

time to time and allow contact between J.T. and his counsel, whenever counsel deemed it 

necessary. J.T.’s counsel declined this offer and advised that he believed he adequately 

understood J.T.’s concerns and his position. Under the circumstances of this case, the 

District Court provided J.T. with a fundamentally fair hearing. 

¶12 Affirmed. 

 /S/ JOHN WARNER 

We Concur: 

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS 

/S/ JIM RICE 

 4