No. DA 07-0070 No. DA 07-0071
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 127N

____________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CUSTODY AND PARENTAL RIGHTS OF M.A. and J.A., Youths In Need of Care.

____________________________________

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, Cause Nos. BDJ 06-111-Y and BDJ 06-112-Y The Honorable Julie Macek, Presiding Judge.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Joslyn Hunt, Assistant Appellant Defender, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Mark W. Mattioli, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Brant S. Light, Cascade County Atto rney; Sarah Corbally, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana

____________________________________ Submitted on Briefs: May 16, 2007 Decided: May 31, 2007 Filed:

_____________________________________________ ClerkJustice Brian Morris 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 noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 W.K. appeals from the decision of the Eigh th Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denying her motion for a continuance of her termination hearing and the court’s order terminating her parental rights to he r children, M.A. and J.A. We affirm. ¶3 The Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) petitioned for emergency protective services regarding M. A. and J.A. on Ma rch 16, 2006. The Department alleged that W.K. had attempted suicide by ingesting sixty Tegratol pills while the children had been sleeping. W.K. s tipulated at the show cause hearing on April 25, 2006, that pr obable cause existed for the Departme nt’s petition. The District Court adjudicated the children as yo uths in need of care. ¶4 The court held the dispositional hearing on May 4, 2006, at which W.K. was present. W.K. agreed to a treatment plan. The court approved the treatment plan on May 4, 2006, and ordered W.K. to complete it. ¶5 The treatment plan called for, among other things, that W.K. address her mental health problems, that she obtain a chem ical dependency evaluation and follow its recommendations, that she maintain a safe home and employment, that she attend and
2complete anger management classes, that sh e attend parenting classes, and that she maintain contact with the children and her so cial worker during the dependency treatment plan. The Department petitione d for termination of W.K.’s parental rights in October 2006. The court set a hearing on the De partment’s petition fo r January 11, 2007. ¶6 W.K. failed to appear for the termina tion hearing and her counsel moved for a continuance. W.K.’s counsel informed the court that he di d not know why W.K. was not at the hearing, but speculated that W.K. may have been attempting to obtain an independent psychological evaluation. Th e District Court denied the motion and proceeded to the merits of the Department’s petition. ¶7 The Department presented the testimony of a social worker and two mental health professionals. The District Court determined that W.K. had failed to complete nearly every portion of her proposed treatment plan and that the c ontinuation of the parent-child legal relationship likely would result in con tinued abuse and neglect of the children due to W.K.’s failure to address and resolve her mental health issues. ¶8 We review a denial of a motion for co ntinuance under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Walker , 225 Mont. 415, 419, 733 P.2d 352, 355 (19 87). W.K. argues on appeal that the District Court’s denial of her motion for continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion in light of the fact that W.K. was in the process of obtaining an independent psychological evaluation. W.K. contends that she was having difficulty obtaining an independen t psychological evaluati on because of her financial constraints. ¶9 We also review a district court’s decision to terminate a person’s parental rights under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Custody and Pare ntal Rights of C.J.K. , 2005
3MT 67, ¶ 13, 326 Mont. 289, ¶ 13 , 109 P.3d 232, ¶ 13. To sa tisfy the relevant statutory requirements for terminating the parent-child relationship, a district court must make specific factual findings. In re C.J.K. , ¶ 13. We review a district court’s findings of fact to determine whether those findi ngs are clearly erroneous. In re Custody and Parental Rights of M.A.D. , 2003 MT 10, ¶ 12, 314 Mo nt. 38, ¶ 12, 62 P.3d 717, ¶ 12. We review the court’s conclusions of law with respect to those findings to determine whether the court correctly interpreted and applied the law. In re M.A.D. , ¶ 12. ¶10 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as ame nded in 2003, that provides for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the br iefs and record before us that the District Court did not abuse its discreti on in denying W.K.’s motion for a continuance. It also is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that substantial evidence supports the District Court’s findings of fact. Finally, it also is manifest on the face of the briefs and record before us that settle d Montana law clearly controls the legal issues and that the District Court correctly interpreted the law. ¶11 We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS We Concur: /S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART /S/ JAMES C. NELSON

4