No. DA 06-0181 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2007 MT 4N 

IN THE MATTER OF: T.D.D.J. 

APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, 

In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DN 2005-09, 

Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Presiding Judge 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant Mother: 

 M. Montgomery, Montgomery Law Offices, PLLC, Hamilton, Montana 

For Appellant Father: 

 Mark McLaverty, Eli M. Parker, McLaverty & Associates, PLLC, 

Missoula, Montana 

 For Respondent: 

Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Mark W. Mattioli, 

Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Howard Recht, Recht and Recht, LLP, Hamilton, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: November 22, 2006 

 Decided: January 9, 2007 

Filed: 

__________________________________________ 

Clerk 
Justice Patricia O. Cotter delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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 noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and 

Montana Reports. 

¶2 K.J. and H.J. (respectively, the biological father and mother of T.D.D.J.) appeal 

the order terminating their parental rights to T.D.D.J. We affirm. 

¶3 T.D.D.J. was born in September 2003. In October 2004, K.J. was charged with 

issuing a bad check and accountability for issuing a bad check. He pled guilty to these 

two charges and was sentenced to ten years, with five suspended. On April 17, 2005, 

H.J. was arrested and detained for methamphetamine use. 

¶4 As a result of K.J.’s incarceration and H.J.’s arrest, on April 17, 2005, the 

Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS), Child and Family Services 

Division (CFS) petitioned for emergency protective services and placed T.D.D.J. with his 

paternal great-grandparents (Grandparents). The record reveals that the Grandparents 

had taken care of T.D.D.J. on several occasions since his birth. On May 11, 2005, the 

District Court adjudicated T.D.D.J. a youth in need of care and granted temporary legal 

custody to the Department. The Department maintained T.D.D.J.’s placement in kinship 

care with his Grandparents. In June 2005, the court approved treatment plans for both 

parents. 

2 
¶5 In July 2005, H.J. entered pleas of guilty to three felony charges: criminal 

possession of dangerous drugs, fraudulently obtaining dangerous drugs, and 

accountability for issuing a bad check. She received a deferred sentence. However, in 

November 2005, her deferred sentence was revoked after she violated several conditions 

of the sentence. Additionally, prior to her revocation she had received a citation for 

shoplifting which included theft of alcoholic beverages. She was also arrested in 

September for food stamp theft. She was sentenced in November 2005 to custody of the 

Montana Department of Corrections (DOC) for ten years, with five suspended. 

¶6 In November 2005, the Department petitioned to terminate K.J.’s and H.J.’s 

parental rights. As of that date, T.D.D.J. had been in kinship foster care with his 

Grandparents for approximately seven months. The District Court concluded that neither 

K.J. nor H.J. had successfully complied with their approved treatment plans and that 

neither K.J.’s, nor H.J.’s, conduct or condition was likely to change within a reasonable 

time. The court therefore ordered termination of parental rights in accordance with § 41-

3-609(1)(f), MCA (2005). 

¶7 On appeal, both K.J. and H.J. argue that the District Court erred in finding that: 

(1) DPHHS had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and (2) K.J.’s and H.J.’s 

conduct was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. In response, DPHHS maintains 

that the court’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence, and that the 

District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating their parental rights. 

¶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 

3 
and applied the law. In re A.N.W., 2006 MT 42, ¶ 28, 331 Mont. 208, ¶ 28, 130 P.3d 619, 

¶ 28 (citation omitted). We review a district court’s ultimate decision to terminate 

parental rights for abuse of discretion. A.N.W., ¶ 29. This Court will neither re-weigh 

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

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

¶9 Section 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, requires complete compliance with a treatment 

plan, as opposed to partial or even substantial compliance. In re T.L., 2005 MT 256, ¶ 

14, 329 Mont. 58, ¶ 14, 122 P.3d 453, ¶ 14. The evidence shows that DPHHS’s efforts to 

reunify the family were thwarted and ultimately unsuccessful because of the parents’ 

inability or unwillingness to adequately address the serious concerns raised in their 

treatment plans. The court received considerable testimony during the termination 

hearing with regard to the various legal and drug-related problems of the parents. 

Further, sufficient evidence was presented to show that neither parent had succeeded in 

complying with the majority of their respective treatment plans, including the 

requirements that they maintain safe and suitable housing, undergo CFS-approved 

evaluation and treatments, maintain supervised contact with T.D.D.J., and address their 

drug and/or legal problems. Additionally, there was ample evidence to support the 

conclusion that neither parents’ conditions were likely to change. The court thus 

concluded that the treatment plans had been unsuccessful and the behavior of K.J. and 

H.J. would not change within a reasonable time. Moreover, evidence was presented 

showing the T.D.D.J. was “well-adjusted” and “thriving” under the care of his 

Grandparents. 

4 
¶10 It is appropriate to decide this case pursuant to our Order of February 11, 2003, 

amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules and providing for 

memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us 

that the appeal is without merit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial 

evidence, the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District 

Court correctly interpreted, and there was clearly no abuse of discretion by the District 

Court. 

¶11 We affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

 

We Concur: 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON 

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART 

/S/ JIM RICE 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS 

5