No. DA 06-0222 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MT 224N

IN THE MATTER OF S.M., A Youth In Need Of Care.

APPEAL FROM: The District Court of th e Twenty-First Judicial District, In and For the County of Ravalli, Cause No. DN 04-014, Honorable James A. Haynes, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Dustin L. Gahagan, Gahagan Law Office, PLLC, Hamilton, Montana For Respondent: Honorable Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Howard Recht, Attorney at Law, Hamilton, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: August 15, 2006 Decided: September 6, 2006 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 J.O. (Mother) appeals the order terminating her parental rights to S.M. We affirm. ¶3 J.O. has a long history of drug abus e. She began using drugs, including methamphetamine, at age thirteen. Although receiving inpatient and outpatient treatment, she has had no significant periods of sobriety for the past twenty years. J.O. continued to use methamphetamine and othe r drugs while pregnant and breastfeeding

S.M. ¶4 On June 10, 2004, J.O. was arrested at the scene of a drug bust. She had a methamphetamine pipe in her purse. S.M., who was age five at the time, was with her. The Department of Public He alth and Human Services (the Department) subsequently placed S.M. with her maternal grandmother. J.O. then left Mo ntana, missing court appearances and visits with her daughter. She was eventually a rrested in Idaho for possession of methamphetamine and returned to Montana. In January 2005, after pleading guilty to criminal po ssession of dangerous drugs and criminal mischief, J.O. was sentenced to a five-year commitment to the Department of Corrections.3 ¶5 The effect of J.O.’s drug pr oblems and instability on S.M. has been severe. S.M. is “seriously emotionally disturbed,” su ffering from both severe reactive attachment disorder as well as post-traumatic stress disord er. Her relationship to J.O. is that of a “trauma bond,” which is develope d in the context of fear for personal safety and survival. Long term placement and st ability is necessary to ad dress S.M.’s disorders. ¶6 After the District Court adjudicated S.M. a youth in need of care and granted temporary legal custody to the Department, th e court ordered the prep aration of treatment plans for J.O. In November 2005, the Department petitioned to terminate J.O.’s parental rights. As of that date, S.M. had been in kinship foster care with her grandmother for just under twenty months. The District Court concluded that the approved treatment plans had not been successfully co mplied with and that J.O.’s conduct or condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court therefore ordered termination of parental rights in accordance wi th § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA (2005). ¶7 On appeal, J.O. argues that the State faile d to prove all of th e necessary elements of § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, and therefore the District Court erred in terminating her parental rights. Section 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, requires complete compliance with a treatment plan, as opposed to partia l or even substantial compliance. In re T.L. , 2005 MT 256, ¶ 14, 329 Mont. 58, ¶ 14 , 122 P.3d 453, ¶ 14. The court received considerable testimony during the termination hearing with regard to the longtime drug addictions suffered by J.O and concluded that J.O. wa s only able to maintain sobriety while incarcerated or under supervision by the crim inal justice system. Further, sufficient4 evidence was presented that J.O. had failed to adequately addr ess her mental health needs

and that J.O. failed to maintain safe and suita ble housing or have re gular contact with her social worker. Finally, the evidence, both testimonial and based on the actions of J.O., indicates that J.O.’s condition is unlikely to change. The court thus concluded that the treatment plans had been unsuccessful and the behavior of J.O. woul d not change within

a reasonable time. ¶8 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. ¶9 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ PATRICIA COTTER