### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2007 MT 189N

IN THE MATTER OF K.W., DA 06-0747 Youth in Need of Care.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IN THE MATTER OF H.W., DA 07-0093 Youth in Need of Care.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IN THE MATTER OF H.W., DA 07-0094 Youth in Need of Care.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and For the County of Hill, Cause Nos. DN 05-038.1, -038.2, -038.3 Honorable David Rice, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Randy H. Randolph, Attorney at Law, Havre, Montana For Respondent: Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jonathan M. Krauss, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, Helena, Montana Cyndee L. Peterson, County Attorney; Gina Bishop, Deputy County Attorney, Havre, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: July 18, 2007 Decided: August 7, 2007 Filed:

__________________________________________ Clerk2 Justice W. William Leaphart delive red 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 disp osition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 The Montana Department of Public Hea lth and Human Servic es (Department)

became involved with S.W. and her children, K.W., H.W ., and H.W., in January 2005 after S.W. attempted suicide. While workin g with S.W. and her on going mental health issues, the Department became concerne d when they observed that S.W. chose inappropriate caregivers for the children and made poor relationship choices. S.W. entered into a voluntary protective service agreement for a couple of months with the Department. After the agreemen t expired, S.W. informed th e Department she still needed help, and in July of 2005, sh e allowed the Department to pl ace her children into foster care. S.W. quit taking her prescribed medica tions and subsequently checked herself into

a mental health center. Because the children could not be returned to her care, and the Department was not able to accept another agreement for foster care, the Department filed a petition for temporary legal custody a nd adjudication as youths in need of care. ¶3 K.W., H.W., and H.W. were adjudicated youths in need of care on September 13, 2005. S.W. agreed that the facts alleged in the petition for adj udication and temporary3 legal custody were true and waiv ed a hearing on the petition. At that time, S.W. entered into a treatment plan with th e Department, which was approve d by the court. According to the treatment plan, S.W. had to comp lete numerous tasks to address safety, permanency, and well-being issues. S.W. did not fully comply with the plan in several respects, even after temporary legal cust ody was extended for six months. ¶4 In August of 2006, the Department file d a petition to terminat e S.W.’s parental rights. At a hearing on September 21, 2006, S.W. requested a cont inuance in order to have more time to comply with the agreement. The District Court denied the continuance and held the hearing. The so cial worker and S.W.’s mental health case manager both testified that S.W.’s patterns of behavior were not likely to change in any reasonable

amount of time. The District Court terminated S.W.’s parental rights and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in suppo rt of its decision. S.W. appeals. ¶5 This Court reviews a district court’s de cision to terminate parental rights to

determine whether the district court abused its discretion. In re D.B. , 2004 MT 371, ¶ 29, 325 Mont. 13, ¶ 29, 103 P.3d 10 26, ¶ 29. We review findi ngs of fact supporting the termination to determine whether they are cl early erroneous, and we review conclusions

of law to determine whet her they are correct. In re D.B. , ¶ 30. A district court’s ruling on a motion for a continuance is discretionary, which we review for abuse of discretion. In re Mental Health of T.M. , 2004 MT 221, ¶ 7, 322 Mont. 39 4, ¶ 7, 96 P.3d 1147, ¶ 7. Here, in its decision to terminate S.W.’s parental rights, the District Court applied the appropriate law and made findings of fact whic h were supported by su bstantial evidence.4 The court did not abuse its discretion in term inating S.W.’s parental rights or in denying

her motion to continue the hearing on the termination. ¶6 It is appropriate to decide this case pur suant to our Order of February 11, 2003, amending Section 1.3 of our 1996 Inte rnal 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 me rit because the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, the legal issues are clearly contro lled by settled Montana la w which the District Court correctly interpreted, and there was clea rly no abuse of discretion by the District

Court. ¶7 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ BRIAN MORRIS