Source: http://narf.org/icwa/state/montana/case/jm.htm
Timestamp: 2014-04-16 13:05:21
Document Index: 46503670

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 41', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 1913', '§ 41', '§ 41', '§ 41']

ICWA Guide Online | Montana Cases Federal Resources | Resources by State | Cases A-Z (Cite as: 353 Mont. 64, 218 P.3d 1213)
**1214 For Appellant: Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Tammy A. Hinderman, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.
*65 ¶ 1 D.M. appeals from an order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, terminating her parental rights. We affirm.
¶ 4 D.M. has a decade long history with the Department of Health and Human Services**1215 (Department), including multiple instances of drug abuse and involvement with law enforcement. The courts have terminated D.M.'s parental rights to five other children after she failed to follow previous treatment plans with respect to two children and voluntarily relinquished her rights to three others following the initiation of termination proceedings by the State.
¶ 6 The Department petitioned for adjudication of J.M. as a youth in need of care and temporary legal custody on February 7, 2008, in response to alleged neglect and ongoing drug abuse by D.M. The Department also cited the failure of prior efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs to D.M. The Department notified the Blackfeet Tribe of the proceeding and the possibility that J.M. might be an Indian child. The Department based its belief that J.M. might be a member of the Blackfeet Tribe on D.M.'s identification of three possible putative fathers, including V.D., to whom D.M. was married at the time of J.M.'s conception. D.M. and V.D. divorced before the Department initiated these proceedings. Montana law presumes *66 J.M. to be the natural child of V.D., however, because she was born within 300 days of the termination of D.M.'s marriage to V.D. Section 40-6-105(a), MCA. D.M.'s marriage to V.D. does not determine definitively J.M.'s status for purposes of ICWA. We nevertheless note D.M.'s marital status as it prompted the Department to notify the Blackfeet Tribe of J.M. as a possible Indian child. The Department had not completed DNA testing of V.D. or the other surviving putative father at the time of the petition.
¶ 8 The court adjudicated J.M. as a youth in need of care on May 15, 2008, and granted the Department temporary legal custody. The court observed that the Blackfeet Tribe had not indicated whether J.M. was an Indian child for purposes of ICWA and noted D.M.'s stipulation pursuant to § 41-3-434(1)-(2), MCA. The court concluded that “based on these facts and the stipulation of the Mother, a legal basis exists for continued court and [D]epartment intervention.” The court cited D.M.'s continuing substance abuse, the prior terminations of her parental rights, and her stipulations in the instant case as clear and convincing evidence in support of its adjudication and temporary custody order.
**1216 ¶ 10 The termination hearing commenced on December 16, 2008, and concluded February 10, 2009. The Department presented evidence that D.M. had failed to complete treatment and the fact of D.M. having been convicted of a DUI in July of 2008. An ICWA expert from the Blackfeet Tribe testified that J.M. would be in danger of serious *67 emotional or physical harm if she were returned to D.M.'s care.
[3] ¶ 14 D.M. argues that the District Court violated 25 U.S.C. § 1913 when it accepted D.M.'s stipulation of J.M. as a youth in need of care without first explaining the consequences and then obtaining her written consent. Section 1913 provides that a parent's consent to the foster care placement of a child or termination of parental rights is invalid unless executed in writing and with procedural safeguards designed to ensure that the parent understands the consequences of her consent. 25 U.S.C. § 1913(a). D.M. argues that the District Court's failure to follow the requirements of § 1913(a) invalidated the court's adjudication of D.M. as a youth in need of care.
¶ 15 Whether § 1913(a) applies to D.M. turns on the issue of whether the proceedings were “voluntary.” D.M. argues that § 1913's failure to distinguish between “voluntary” and “involuntary” proceedings supports her claim that § 1913(a) applies to all voluntary “acts of foster care placement or termination of parental rights ... regardless of the *68 type of underlying procedure at issue.” Thus, D.M. argues that her consent to adjudication and temporary placement triggered § 1913 notwithstanding the adversarial nature of the Department's petition.
¶ 17 D.M. correctly observes that § 1913 does not distinguish on its face between voluntary and involuntary proceedings. Section 1913 by its terms, however, implicates voluntarily initiated termination or foster care proceedings.**1217 It is intended “to encourage parents to make appropriate placement of their children when they are not confident of their own ability to parent” and are without counsel. M.G., 201 P.3d at 358. The lack of counsel highlights the informal nature of the proceedings covered by § 1913. D.M. did not approach the Department voluntarily to give up custody as contemplated by § 1913. D.M. appeared at the hearing with her appointed counsel in light of the adversarial nature of the proceedings.
¶ 19 We faced an analogous situation in In re P.S., 2006 MT 4, 330 Mont. 239, 127 P.3d 451. The Department had initiated termination proceedings. The father, in an effort to forestall the involuntary termination and its attendant consequences for future children, sought *69 to relinquish voluntarily his parental rights. P.S., ¶ 8. An involuntary termination leads to a presumption in favor of termination of parental rights to future children. P.S., ¶ 8; § 41-3-423(2)(e), MCA. This Court rejected the father's efforts on the grounds that the termination statute, § 41-3-609(1)(a), MCA, provides a court with discretion whether to take into account a parent's attempt to relinquish voluntarily when deciding whether to order involuntary termination. P.S., ¶ 14. D.M. here, too, may not tip the statutory balance in her favor by seeking to relinquish voluntarily her parental rights when faced with the prospect of involuntary termination. Section 1913(a) has no application to the involuntary termination proceedings initiated by the Department against D.M.
¶ 21 Where, as here, the Department had reason to believe that it might be dealing with an Indian child, and in fact notified the tribe to that effect, we have held that a district court abused its discretion when it failed to resolve definitively the threshold question of whether the children at issue were “Indian children” within the meaning of ICWA. A.G., ¶ 15. We determined that the district court should have delayed final adjudication pending a determination of the children's status once it had initiated proceedings to discover the Indian status of the children. A.G., ¶ 16. The court instead unilaterally determined that the children were not “Indian children” despite responses from the Tribes indicating that further research was needed. A.G., ¶ 5. The court also heard evidence from the mother and the children's **1218 grandmother concerning the children's eligibility for tribal enrollment, including a letter from the tribe indicating that it would intervene on *70 the mother's behalf. A.G., ¶ 7.
[5] ¶ 22 These facts distinguish this case from A.G. First, D.M. stipulated to the youth in need of care adjudication and to the treatment plan. A parent's valid stipulation under § 41-3-434, MCA, can satisfy the required findings for the adjudication of a youth in need of care even absent an evidentiary hearing. In re M.W., 2001 MT 78, 305 Mont. 80, 23 P.3d 206; In re M.B., 2004 MT 304, 323 Mont. 468, 100 P.3d 1006. The District Court adjudicated J.M. as a youth in need of care based on both D.M.'s stipulation and the record as a whole.
We Concur: MIKE McGRATH, PATRICIA O. COTTER and JOHN WARNER, JJ.*71 Justice JAMES C. NELSON concurs.
¶ 27 Additionally, and without going into the detail that appellate counsel did, I agree that the law was not entirely followed in this **1219 case. I have joined the Court's Opinion, but perhaps, for the wrong reason. Quite simply, given D.M.'s dismal track record and the unlikelihood that she will ever be able to parent J.M., I simply cannot find a good reason to send this case back to the District Court for further proceedings. I do not believe that would be in J.M.'s best interest when the likely outcome would be exactly the same. Moreover, given J.M.'s Indian status, her tribe had substantial input and involvement throughout this case. Therefore, the spirit, if not the letter, of ICWA was followed. Though my decision is, admittedly, result-oriented, that is not to say that I disagree with appellate counsel's arguments on appeal.
Furthermore, it is patently unfair for the OSPD (Appellate Defender) to attack as plain error a stipulation an OSPD lawyer *72 made below. It is unfair to Judge Neill and it [is] also unfair to J.M. and her foster parents.... The Appellate Defender's decision to renege on its stipulation also does not promote Indian cultural or tribal interests....
[t]he prosecutor's role is a unique one within the criminal justice system. Though the [county] attorney must diligently discharge the duty of prosecuting individuals accused of criminal conduct, the prosecutor may not seek victory at the expense of the defendant's constitutional rights. Thus, the prosecution is obligated to respect the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial in compliance with due process of law. Moreover, the *73 prosecutor may not bring criminal charges against an **1220 individual unless supported by probable cause, and, once charges are instituted, must reveal to the court any information which negates the existence of probable cause....
Finally, the Department's insinuation that “OSPD” intentionally fails to train trial counsel as part of an agency-wide strategy to gain a tactical advantage on appeal is preposterous.FN1 Appellate counsel for the mother has an obligation to zealously represent the mother and to raise on her behalf nonfrivolous appellate issues, including claims of plain error by the trial court and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Appellate counsel does not have the same obligation to ensure the system is “fair” to the district court judge, the child, or the child's foster parents. Moreover, the idea that it is somehow “unfair” to expect district *74 court judges to follow the law is absurd. People make mistakes, even district court judges. It is appellate counsel's job to ensure those mistakes are presented to this Court for review, and it is this Court's job to review them, if circumstances warrant. When the law is plain, the district court nonetheless makes a decision in contravention of that law, and that decision compromises the integrity of the judicial process and affects the mother's fundamental right to parent, appellate counsel has the duty to raise the issue before this Court on appeal, regardless of what trial counsel's position below may have been. The mother contends this is the case here and urges the Court to exercise its inherent power to review these important issues now. [Internal citations omitted.]