No. 05-522 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2006 MT 196N 

_______________________________________ 

IN THE MATTER OF 

A.M., H.M., D.R., and K.R., 

 Youths in Need of Care. 

______________________________________ 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

 In and for the County of Cascade, Cause No. CDJ-03-157-Y 

 The Honorable Kenneth R. Neill, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

 For Appellant: 

Meghan Lulf Sutton, Attorney at Law, Great Falls, Montana 

 For Respondent: 

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

Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Brant Light, County Attorney; Sarah Corbally and Matthew Robertson, 

Deputy County Attorneys, Great Falls, Montana 

____________________________________ 

Submitted on Briefs: July 26, 2006 

 Decided: August 22, 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 C.M., the mother of the children involved in this case, appeals an order of the 

Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, terminating her parental rights to A.M., 

H.M., D.R. and K.R. We affirm. 

¶3 One of the children suffers from a rare genetic disorder and requires special care. 

The Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) removed the children 

from C.M.’s custody because of concerns about her use of alcohol. Authorities found 

C.M. asleep in her vehicle while intoxicated with two of the children present. 

¶4 The District Court found the children to be youths in need of care, and ordered a 

treatment plan on November 20, 2003. In part, the treatment plan required C.M. to 

maintain sobriety. The District Court extended temporary legal custody of the children to 

DPHHS on June 9, 2004, to give C.M. an additional three months to work on her 

treatment plan. The District Court ordered an additional three month extension on 

October 5, 2004. 

¶5 On December 30, 2004, DPHHS finally filed a petition for termination of C.M.’s 

parental rights. Following a termination hearing, the District Court terminated the parent2 
child legal relationships between C.M. and the children. The District Court found that 

C.M. continued to use alcohol. It also concluded that C.M. failed to successfully 

complete her treatment plan, and the conduct rendering her unfit was unlikely to change 

within a reasonable time. This appeal followed. 

¶6 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. 

¶7 C.M. argues that the District Court ignored testimony at the termination hearing 

that she made progress on her treatment plan. Given this progress, C.M. contends that 

the District Court abused its discretion in terminating her parental rights. However, after 

a consideration of all of the evidence presented at the termination of parental rights 

hearing, and especially considering the evidence concerning the seminal requirement that 

C.M. maintain sobriety, the District Court found that she had not met the requirements of 

the plan. She had tested positive for alcohol seven times. The last positive test occurred 

on April 18, 2005, shortly before the hearing. C.M. additionally missed ten random tests 

for alcohol use. The record supports these findings. C.M. admitted relapsing into alcohol 

use. 

¶8 This Court reviews a district court’s findings of fact to determine if they are 

clearly erroneous, and its conclusions of law to determine whether it correctly interpreted 

and applied the law. In re A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 28, 331 Mont. 208, ¶ 28, 130 P.3d 

619, ¶ 28. This Court reviews a district court’s ultimate decision to terminate parental 

rights for abuse of discretion. A.N.W., ¶ 29. This Court should neither reweigh 

3 
conflicting evidence nor substitute its judgment regarding the strength of the evidence for 

that of the district court. A.N.W., ¶ 29. 

¶9 A treatment plan requires complete compliance, as opposed to partial or even 

substantial compliance. In re A.A., 2005 MT 119, ¶ 31, 327 Mont. 127, ¶ 31, 112 P.3d 

993, ¶ 31. 

¶10 The District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating C.M.’s parental 

rights. Affirmed. 

 /S/ JOHN WARNER 

We Concur: 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

/S/ JIM RICE 

4