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 Gene ral; 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:

______________________________________ ClerkJustice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Para graph 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 disp osition 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, appeal s an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade Count y, terminating her pare ntal rights to A.M., H.M., D.R. and K.R. We affirm. ¶3 One of the children suffers fro m a rare genetic disorder an d requires special care. The Department of Public Health and Hu man 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 intoxica ted with two of the children present. ¶4 The District Court found the children to be youths in n eed 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 extend ed temporary legal custody of the children to DPHHS on June 9, 2004, to give C.M. an additional three mont hs to work on her treatment plan. The District Court orde red an additional three month extension on October 5, 2004. ¶5 On December 30, 2004, DPHHS finally file d a petition for termination of C.M.’sparental rights. Following a termination hearing, the District Court terminated the parent2child legal relationships between C.M. and th e children. The District Court found that C.M. continued to use alcohol. It also c oncluded 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 deci de this case pursuant to Se ction 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 igno red 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 te rminating her parental rights. However, after a consideration of all of the evidence presen ted at the termination of parental rights hearing, and especially considering the eviden ce concerning the seminal requirement that C.M. maintain sobriety, the District Court fo und that she had not me t the requirements of the plan. She had tested pos itive for alcohol seven times. The last positive test occurred on April 18, 2005, shortly befo re the hearing. C.M. additionally missed ten random tests for alcohol use. The record su pports these findings. C.M. admitted relapsing into alcohol

use. ¶8 This Court reviews a district court’s findi ngs of fact to determine if they are clearly erroneous, and its conc lusions of law to determine wh ether 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 review s a district court’s ultimate decision to terminate parental rights for abuse of discretion. A.N.W. , ¶ 29. This Court should neither reweigh

3conflicting evidence nor substitute its judgment regarding the st rength of the evidence for that of the district court. A.N.W. , ¶ 29. ¶9 A treatment plan requires complete comp liance, as opposed to partial or even substantial compliance. In re A.A. , 2005 MT 119, ¶ 31, 327 Mo nt. 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