No. 89-464 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

-. 

IN THE MATTER OF R.B. a/k/a R-K. 

AND R.J.K., youths in Need of CareCLERK OF SUPHEM. COU~r 

i; rAY'i F~,J, 

APPEAL PROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable Thomas M. McKj-ttrick, Judge presiclincj. 

COUNSE!., OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

John Keith, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

:Ion. Marc Racicot , Attorney General, Hzlena , Plontcil:.: 

Jennifer M. Anders, Asst. Atty. General, Helen<! 

Patrick L. Paul, Cocnty Attorney, Great Falls, 

Fontana; Tammy Plubeli , Deputy, Greet Falls 

Submitted on Briefs: Feb. 15, 1990 

Decided: March 22, :199i 
Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Appellant appeals an order of the Eighth Judicial District, 

Cascade County, Montana, terminating her parental rights regarding 

R.B.K. and R.J.K. We affirm. 

Appellant raises a single issue for review: Did the District 

Court err in its findings that the treatment plan was unsuccessful? 

On December 16, 1987, the District Court adjudged R. B. K. , then 

age four, a youth in need of care and it adjudged R. J. K. , born 

January 8, 1988, a youth in need of care on January 26, 1988. In 

the order declaring R.J.K. a youth in need of care, the District 

Court found that appellant had failed to address the abuse or 

neglect of R.B.K. and had not taken any steps to learn adequate 

parenting skills. Further, the District Court found that appellant 

had refused to seek prenatal care, or to adequately provide for her 

new baby in terms of food, clothing, or shelter. 

The two cases were consolidated. On February 29, 1988, the 

~istrict Court approved a treatment plan upon which all parties 

had agreed. The treatment plan set a three-month completion date. 

The Department of Family Services filed a petition for permanent 

legal custody of R.B.K. and R.J.K. on September 20, 1988 alleging 

the following: 

The proposed treatment plan has not been 

complied with by [the mother] and has not been 

successful, in that: 

1. The psychological evaluation by Ken 

Collenborne stated ltcharacterlogical [sic] 

defects are deeply ingrained and chronic in 
nature and it is unlikely that 

psychotherapeutic intervention will be of much 

benefit in bringing about significant change. 'I 

Ken Collenborne recommended that [the mother] 

not regain custody of her children, if ever, 

until she completed a rigorous treatment 

program which included intensive psychotherapy 

sessions. [The mother] has not initiated any 

type of psychotherapy services. 

2. [The mother] did attend 8 Parents 

Anonymous sessions as required pursuant to the 

treatment plan, but did not benefit from the 

sessions because she has maintained a strange 

sense of denial. 

3. [The mother] did attend 8 parenting 

classes at St. Thomas child and ~amily 

Services, but again did not actively 

participate in the classes and did not 

demonstrate a desire to improve her parenting 

skills. 

4. [The mother] moved to Monarch, Montana, 

which made her involvement in the Supportive 

Friends Program logistically unfeasible. 

5. [The mother] has been unwilling to develop 

a cooperative relationship with her social 

worker and has been extremely negative from 

the time the Department of Family services 

intervened in the case. 

Further, [the mother] has failed to maintain 

communication with her social worker even 

after the social worker requested her to do 

so. 

The District Court held hearings on three occasions, December 

7, 1988, January 25, 1989, and April 13, 1989. In addition to 

appellant's testimony, the District Court heard testimony from 

Kenneth Collenborne, a clinical psychologist, the children's foster 

mother, the children's pediatrician, the various social workers 

involved in the case, the leaders of the support group and 

parenting class appellant attended, and several other persons who 
had observed appellant with her children. On June 8, 1989, the 

District Court terminated appellant's parental rights finding that 

appellant had not initiated the long-term psychotherapy she needed 

to treat her emotional and personality disorder. Further, although 

appellant had complied with the treatment plants requirement that 

she attend parenting classes and support groups, appellant's 

behavior and ability to parent did not improve as a result, 

rendering the treatment plan unsuccessful. The District Court also 

found that the emotional or mental condition causing her parental 

unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. 

In relation to youths in need of care, 5 41-3-609, MCA, sets 

forth the following criteria for termination of parental rights: 

41-3-609(1) (c) the child is an adjudicated 

youth in need of care and both of the 

following exist: 

(i) an appropriate treatment plan that has 

been approved by the court has not been 

complied with by the parents or has not been 

successful; and 

(ii) the conduct or condition of the parents 

rendering them unfit is unlikely to change 

within a reasonable time. 

The State must show by clear and convincing evidence that the 

statutory criteria have been met. Matter of J.L.S. (Mont. 1988), 

761 P.2d 838, 840, 44 St.Rep. 1842, 1845. We will not reverse a 

district court's decision regarding findings of fact if those 

findings are supported by substantial credible evidence. Matter 

of A.H. (Mont. 1989), 769 P.2d 1245, 1247, 45 St.Rep. 395, 397. 

Appellant challenges the District Court's finding that she 
refused to participate in a long-term therapy program as 

recommended by Ken Collenborne. At the hearing, appellant 

testified that she had contacted the mental health center on 

several occasions and that she was told that she had been put on 

a waiting list. However, appellant ignores the substantial 

credible evidence in the record that appellant had never initiated 

contact with the mental health center and that she was not on a 

waiting list. We reject appellant's contention. 

Also disputed is the District Court's conclusion that 

appellant's existing mental or emotional condition was unlikely to 

change within a reasonable time. Appellant contends that the 

District Court relied upon the testimony of Ken Collenborne to 

reach its conclusion. But, Ken Collenborne's testimony cannot 

support that finding, appellant asserts, because he spent only 35 

minutes with appellant and did not observe her interacting with her 

children. However, the record discloses that Mr. Collenborne based 

his testimony not only on the actual time he spent with appellant, 

but also on the results of psychological tests he administered. 

He testified that appellant's personality disorder was deeply 

ingrained and that appellant would have to make a genuine 

commitment to change in order to modify her behavior. Contrary to 

appellant's contention, the evidence of appellant's unwillingness 

or inability to modify her behavior comes not from Mr. Collenborne, 

but from the social workers supervising appellant's case and the 

leaders of the parenting class and support group she attended. 

Substantial credible evidence exists in the record to support a 
finding that appellant is unwillingly or unable to make the 

necessary effort to change her behavior so that she can adequately 

parent R.B.K. and R.J.K. 

In summary, the District Court found that the State met its 

burden of proof under 5 41-3-609 (1) (c) , MCA. Substantial credible 

evidence in the record supports that decision. We affirm the 

District Court. 

We concur: 

@@*/-/ 

Justices