No. 02-308 

Tf{E S";PRE".;IE COURT OF: I~tiE SmTE OF hlOx~rAA%Jr\ 

2003 M'f 10 

!Y 1 LIE XIATTER OF THE C['STODY 

AED PAREIVTAL. RIGHTS OF 

M.A.D. and C.D., 

Youths In Need Of Care 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, 

Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Judge Presiding 

COGNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Peter Bov~ngdon. Assistant Public Defender, Helena, Montana 

For Respondents: 

Honorable R4ske hlcGrath, r\ttorney General. Jlm Il'heehs, Asb~siant 

Attorney General. Heicna, Vontana 

Leo Gallagher, County .kttorneq; Carolyn A Clemens, Deputy 

County Attorney, Helena. Montana 

Randl M Hood, Chief Public Defender, Helena, Montana (For Youths) 

Filed: 

Subnnttcd on Br~efs Ociobcr 17, 2002 

Decided. January 23,2003 
Jastice \V. Williain idcaphart delivered the iipinion oftiic C:our~. 

4; 1 .Appeiiani. LP.i?., natural moihii- of 2;i.A.l). and C.D.. appca!s ilic District Court's 

Orders of J:rntiary 20, 20112, and Fehrnary 15: 2002, terminating her parenra? rights. We 

afirrn. 

72 The sole issue raised on appeal is whether tlie District Court abused its discretion in 

terminating D.D.'s parental rights. 

Background 

*3 In March 2000. D.D. was cited for endangeri~ig the welfare of her children. Police, 

in search of a juvenile offender with a serious criminal record, entered D.D.'s home kvhcre 

they found one child chew 111g or: a clgarcttc and the other ch~ld eatlng n~~tshells off the floor. 

Thc ch~ldren were three and he )ears old at the tlmc. D.D uas not at home, anti the adults 

in the residence tvere sleeping. 1j.D. had previo~~sly heel1 cited for child eizdangerment in 

Ohio for leaving M.A.D. and C.D. alone when they were one and three pears old. 

$4 The police referred the incident to the Montana Dcpartnlcnt of Health and Human 

Services (the Department), which begam an investigation. Social lvorkers from the 

Ilepartmc~it learned that the olclest child, 'L1.A.D.; had bccn sexually n~olested by a male 

whom D.D. had let stay in the home. .4nother man staying with D.D. had kicked M.A.D. 

across the living room floor. 

*5 In April 2000, the tlepal-tment entered into a trcatme~it plan with D.D. ?'he plan 

reyu~rcd Lj 11.. rfshc had to leabe the ehildlcn, to place them with he1 stepmother and father 
The plan also required D.11. to screen visitors to hcr home, kcgin corrnseiing, cornplcte a 

chcmicid iiepcncicncy evaluation, attend parenting classes. find ernpioyrni:ni, and perform 

sevcral other rasks. 

76 Shortly after entering into the first treatment pian, D.D, requested that thc children 

be placed in foster case because she believed both she and her cl~ildren were in danger. 

Illtimately, after a series of unsuecessfiii treatment plans, the Department filed a petition ibr 

tire termination of D.D.'s parental rights. Shortly thereafter, i1.D. moved to LL'yoming to 

"start a new life,'' and in July 2001. she relinquished 11er parental rights; however, she later 

retracted the relinquishment. 

"'7 II A hearing on the termi~ratioll of D.D.'s parcntal rights was heid in Noi~cn~ber 2001. 

Dean Ckegg, a clisiical psychologist who had interviewed D.D., testi6ed that D.D. had a 

below-average I.Q. of 84, and that she probably had a learning disorder which lecl her to 

choose associates unwisely atid limited her ability to end relationships kvhert necessary. 

Gregg further testified that D.D. was not familiar m-ith children's normal tlcvelopsncntal 

stages and that her treatment would be lengthy, from two to four years, given that she was 

neither insightful nor motivated. 

"8 ti M.A.D.'sprimaryther:~pist at intermountain i::hiidr-en's IIome: :Ilal-garelAnn Stin~at~; 

also testified. At the time of the hearing, M.A.D. had been at Intermountain for approximately three months. Stimatz believed that M.A.D. Irad been sexiially abused and that he had 

a history ofphysical abuse. She testified that b4..4.D. resisted nurture rind care, did not trust 
adults, was aggressive with both aciults and children, and had acted our sexually with both 

his yourlgcr brother and another boy in his foster "Ro:ne. Slle a!so testified that ti,.A,B.'s 

I~istory showed that he was left unattended at rimes and that 13.D.'~ acquaintances haci been 

violent to\vard him. She testified that his bchaiior was typical of children who had been 

sexually abused. Stimatz believed that, in order for D.D. to hake a role in his life, she would 

have to be willing to work with his therapists; however. in the three months that M.A.D. had 

been at intermountain, D.D. hadonly contacted Intermonntain once. Stimatznoted that D.D. 

itadnot requested to see her children when she %as in Helena for the ternhation hearing and 

that she had visited with her children only once in thc five months prior to the hearing. 

ql9 I\ social worker for the Department, who had worked extensively with D.D. testified 

that D.D. had faiied to complete any of lter treatnieut plans. %,%i!e over the course of 18 

montl~s D.D. had obtained some evaluations, she had eo~npletcd neither the therapy nor a 

psychosexual evaluation as outlined in the plans. The social worker also testified that she 

believed that D.D. still did not understand how to protect the children. 

710 D.D. testified on her own behalf at the lieari~ig. She explained that she was Inore 

stablc since n~o\-ing to Wyoming, that she had a steady job, that she livcd with a man who 

worked reg~ilarl:;; and that she could get proper daycare for both her cliildrcn, 

'11 1 ,After reviewing the testimony, the District C:ourt ordered the termination of t).Il.'s 

parental rights 011 January 29,2002. An amended order ofterrtiination followed a fe~- wccks 

latcr. ln both, the District Court hund that "[tjhc problen~s which existed in March 2000. 
which lcd to the dccision oiDPfiJHS to ask for custody ofthe youths still csist at this litnc," 

-9 and (hat '"ji;.(>.] is not likely io co~l-tpletc hcr [irea-irncnij plans within a rt.asi;nab!c time. 

D.D. filed this timely appeal. 

Standard of Review 

ri 12 We rckiew a irial court's decision to terminate parental rights for abuse of discretion. 

See In re CX, 2001 MT 187,l 9. 306 Pvlont. 238, rj 0. 32 P.3d 754,T ")citing In rP.J.i\4.J., 

I999 MT 277; 7 10: 200 Mont. 510, 7 16, 989 P.2d 840, 16). The test for an abuse of 

discretion is "whcthcr the trial court acted arbitrarily, without employinent of conscientious 

judgment, or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice." It! re C.'.I1.> 

9. 'Phe standard of review of a trial caul-t's findings of fact in a parental termination case 

is whether the findings in question are clearly erroneous. See CLIiztter of/'.E. (19977), 282 

Mont. 52, 56,9334 P.2d 206,200; 12,lnttcr of,J. I,., I1.L. ijri~IA.C;. (1996), 277 MOII~. 283,287, 

922 P.2d 450,461. The standard of review ofa trial court's conclusions of law in such eases 

is whether its conclusions are correct. See \/lutti?r of'l'.E., 282 Mont. at 56-57, 934 P.2d at 

200; jZluftcr ofJ.L., 277 Mont. at 287, 922 P.2d at 461. 

'11 3 Seetton41-3-600, MCA, nhlcl~ applics to the tet-rnniation ofparental rtghts, pro\ldes 

in pertinent part as follows: 

'i'he co~trt may order a termination of the parent-child legal relationship upon 

a finding that . . . the follotving circumstances exist: . . . (i) the child is an 

adjudicated youth in need of care and both of the following exist: . . . (ii) the 
conduct or- condition of tire parcnts rcndcring the111 iinljt is unlikciy to change 

within a reasonable timc. 

i).D. argues illat the District Coun abused iis discretion in fiilding that "[tjlic problems ,which 

existed in March 2000 . . . still exist at this time," and that -' she is nor likely to complcte her 

[treatment] plans within a reasonable time." These findings imply that subsection (f)(,ii) of 

$41 -3-6!!9, MCi\, that the "conduct or co~idition" rendering her r~niit was unlikely to change 

in a reasonable time, was satisficd. D.D. argues that the District Court erred because thc 

"conduct or condition" rendering her unfit in March 2000. her lack of stability, no longer 

exists as she now leads a "stable" and “child-centered" life in LVyorning. 

714 !-(owever, D.D.'s argument ignores the contrary tesiirilony oEa clinical psychologist, 

a therapist, and a social worker. Their testimony illeluded the obscrcation that I3.D. had not 

completed any of her treatment plans and that she had essentially refused to obtain rt~ental 

health and alcohol counseling. Certainly, the fact that D.D. haci not completed a treatment 

plan within a year and a half indicates that D.D. is unlikely to complete one within a 

reasonable time and, consequently, the condt~ct rendering her unfit is sintilarly unlikely to 

change ivithin a reasonable tirnc. We hold that the District Court based its findings on 

substantial credible eikkmce. 'Therefore; we affirm the District (-ourt's termiilation ofD.D.'s 

parental rights. 

Justice / 
Vie concur: