Title: MATTER OF M F J F R W
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-478
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 24, 1982

No. 81-478 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IN THE MATTER OF M.F., J.F., and R.W., YOUTH IN NEED OF CARE. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Diane Barz, Judge presidinq. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gary E. Wilcox, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Ilarold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Olsen, Christensen & Gannett, Billings, Montana Damon Gannett, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: September 30, 1982 Decided: November 24, 1982 Filed: wok & 4 1982 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . On December 4 , 1980, t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s p e t i t i o n e d t h e District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of Yellowstone, f o r permanent c u s t o d y of J . F . , M.F., and R.W. and f o r t e r m i n a t i o n of a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . A f t e r h e a r i n g s on December 29, 1980, A p r i l L O , 1981, and A p r i l 1 5 , 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n . F i n a l judgment was e n t e r e d August 4 , 1981, and t h e n a t u r a l mother a p p e a l s . P e t i t i o n e r is t h e n a t u r a l mother of J . F . , M.F., and R.W. Each of t h e c h i l d r e n have a d i f f e r e n t n a t u r a l f a t h e r . J.F. was born A p r i l 11, 1967, i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. M.F. was born May 11, 1970, i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. R.W. w a s born December 9 , 1974, i n Farmington , New Mexico. The Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS) f i r s t had c o n t a c t w i t h t h e n a t u r a l mother i n 1967. E s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g t h e t i m e p e r i o d from 1976 t h r o u g h 1981, SRS r e c e i v e d numerous c o m p l a i n t s a l l e g i n g abuse and n e g l e c t of t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n . I n c i d e n t s of p h y s i c a l abuse were s p o r a d i c and g e n e r a l l y involved one of t h e m o t h e r ' s f o u r husbands, o r many b o y f r i e n d s . I n O c t o b e r , 1976, Ron Cooper, t h e m o t h e r ' s t h e n hus- band, threw R.W. a g a i n s t a w a l l . R.W., who w a s then o n l y twenty- t w o months o l d , s u f f e r e d a broken l e g as a r e s u l t of t h e i n c i d e n t . I n November, 1976, M.F., t h e n s i x y e a r s o l d , a r r i v e d a t s c h o o l w i t h a s w o l l e n upper l i p . M.F. t o l d h e r t e a c h e r t h a t h e r mother had s t r u c k h e r w i t h a s w i t c h . I n t h e f a l l of 1979, M.F. I s t e a c h e r observed b r u i s e s on M.F. 's l e g and f i n g e r m a r k s on h e r arm. M.F. t o l d h e r t e a c h e r t h a t " t h e man" who was l i v i n g w i t h h e r mother a t t h e t i m e had kicked h e r and grabbed h e r arm. I n J a n u a r y , 1980, M.F. missed one day of s c h o o l . The n e x t day M.F. t o l d h e r s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l t h a t Cyrus Watson had s t r u c k h e r and t h a t s h e s u f f e r e d cracked r i b s as a r e s u l t of t h e blow. Watson was l i v i n g w i t h t h e mother a t t h e t i m e . A p u b l i c h e a l t h n u r s e , L i l Anderson, had s e v e r a l c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n . I n 1976, L i l Anderson made h e r f i r s t v i s i t to t h e f a m i l y home. She found t h e home t o be q u i t e d i r t y and noted t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e or no food i n t h e home. M s . Anderson gave t h e mother i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g n u t r i t i o n , c l e a n l i n e s s , and a p p r o p r i a t e d r e s s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . When M s . Anderson worked w i t h t h e f a m i l y on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , t h e house c o n d i t i o n s would improve. When she d i d n ' t see t h e f a m i l y f o r a p e r i o d of about one month s h e n o t i c e d t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a r e would d e t e r i o r a t e . S e v e r a l c o m p l a i n t s d u r i n g t h e f ive-year p e r i o d concerned t h e c h i l d r e n ' s g e n e r a l h e a l t h and well-being. I n J u n e , 1978, a social worker found J . F . s t a n d i n g on Rimrock Road a t 11:30 p.m. H e had been r e p o r t e d s t a n d i n g t h e r e f o r t h r e e and one-half hours. J . F . s t a t e d t h a t he had l e f t h i s m o t h e r ' s home because h i s m o t h e r ' s t h e n husband had u p s e t him. I n 1979, M.F. came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h Kathy Rumph, a s c h o o l t e a c h e r a t Newrnan Elementary School. A t Newman, M.F. was placed i n a program c a l l e d t h e r e s o u r c e room. To q u a l i f y f o r placement i n t h e r e s o u r c e room a s t u d e n t must be a t l e a s t one y e a r behind i n normal g r a d e l e v e l performance. M s . Rumph t e s t i f i e d M.F. showed s i g n s of s e v e r e emotional d i s t u r b a n c e . M.F. was d e f e n s i v e and remained i s o l a t e d from t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n . She was unable to p l a y w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n and a t times would t a l k "baby t a l k . " While a t Newrnan, M.F. I s appearance was g e n e r a l l y unkept. H e r c l o t h e s were g e n e r a l l y d i r t y and i l l - f i t t i n g . On s e v e r a l occa- s i o n s s h e came t o s c h o o l w i t h i n a p p r o p r i a t e d r e s s f o r t h e weather c o n d i t i o n s . M.F. had a p h y s i c a l problem causing h e r to w e t t h e bed a t n i g h t and would sometimes come t o s c h o o l a f t e r having w e t t h e bed and had not bathed o r showered i n t h e morning. M.F. t o l d M s . Rumph t h a t s h e was o c c a s i o n a l l y l e f t a l o n e f o r e n t i r e weekends w i t h o u t food to eat. M s . Rumph and M.F.'s classroom t e a c h e r arranged t o feed M .F. b r e a k f a s t everyday when she a r r i v e d a t s c h o o l . A f t e r M.F. was fed a good b r e a k f a s t h e r academic per- f ormance would improve markedly. I n December 1979, t h e f a m i l y moved to an a r e a j u s t o u t s i d e of B i l l i n g s known a s Lockwood. S h e r r y L i t h a n d e r , t h e p r i n c i p a l o f Lockwood S c h o o l , had c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t a c t w i t h M.F. and J.F. M s . L i t h a n d e r t e s t i f i e d M.F. was placed i n a program similar to t h e program a t Newman S c h o o l . S p e c i a l arrangements were made to f e e d M.F. e v e r y morning. M s . L i t h a n d e r t e s t i f i e d M.F. of t e n came t o s c h o o l w i t h d i r t y and improper c l o t h i n g . M.F. had problems i n t h e classroom and tended t o f a n t a s i z e . Again, M.F. was placed i n a s p e c i a l l e a r n i n g program to compensate f o r h e r academic de- f i c i e n c i e s . I n A p r i l 1979, M.F. was placed i n f o s t e r care. The s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l recognized a s u b s t a n t i a l improvement i n M.F. I s p h y s i c a l and emotional well-being. M.F. was well-dressed and well-fed and began to f e e l b e t t e r about h e r s e l f . She became b e t t e r accepted by h e r classmates. I n May 1979, M.F. w a s r e t u r n e d t o h e r mother and h e r improvement s u b s i d e d . Susan Betz also had c o n t a c t w i t h M.F. a t Lockwood S c h o o l b e g i n n i n g i n December 1979. M s . Betz conducted numerous tests w i t h M.F. The test r e s u l t s showed M.F. e x h i b i t e d some l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y . M s . Betz found M.F. to be two to two and one-half y e a r s behind h e r academic age l e v e l . M.F. showed a c e r t a i n e v a s i v e n e s s which a t t r i b u t e d to h e r performance a t s c h o o l and h e r l a c k of f r i e n d s . I n August, 1980, M.F. and R.W. were a g a i n placed i n f o s t e r care. Both M s . L i t h a n d e r and M s . Betz n o t i c e d c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement i n M.F. 's b e h a v i o r and appearance during t h e 1980-81 s c h o o l y e a r . M s . L i t h a n d e r a l s o had c o n t a c t w i t h R.W. d u r i n g t h e 1980-81 s c h o o l y e a r when R.W. w a s e n r o l l e d i n k i n d e r g a r t e n . R.W. showed s i g n s of slow development and s u f f e r e d from environmental and c u l t u r a l d e p r i v a t i o n which was a t t r i b u t e d to h e r home environment d u r i n g h e r pre-school y e a r s . Collette Melia, a neighbor of t h e f a m i l y a t Lockwood, t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s home c o n d i t i o n s . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s s h e fed R.W. because t h e c h i l d would a s k h e r f o r food. On one o c c a s i o n Mrs. Melia observed R.W. out- s i d e t h e f a m i l y ' s t r a i l e r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:15 a.m. t r y i n g to g e t i n . Although t h e morning t e m p e r a t u r e was v e r y c o l d , R.W. was wearing o n l y a l i g h t j a c k e t . R.W. was c r y i n g b u t no one would open t h e door f o r R.W. to e n t e r t h e house. On one o c c a s i o n i n August 1979, t h e mother l e f t t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n sJ-eeping i n t h e trailer. A roast which was l e f t cooking i n t h e oven c a u g h t f i r e and neighbors had t o remove t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n . On August 8 , 1980, M.F. and R.W. were placed i n f o s t e r care w i t h Kaye Nelson. Mrs. Nelson t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e g i r l s 1 con- d i t i o n when t h e y f i r s t a r r i v e d a t h e r house. Mrs. Nelson s t a t e d t h e g i r l s seemed d e s p e r a t e f o r l o v e and a f f e c t i o n and would c l i n g on anyone who would allow it. When t h e g i r l s a r r i v e d t h e y were b o t h v e r y hungry and R.W. was v e r y skinny. The two lacked t a b l e manners and would h i d e food i n t h e i r rooms. M.F. had a v e r y l o w s e l f - e s t e e m . Although R.W. could t a l k , M.F. u s u a l l y had to t r a n s l a t e f o r R.W. when she spoke. A t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g b o t h g i r l s showed e x c e l l e n t o v e r a l l improvement. R.W. was b e t t e r a b l e to communicate and had a normal a p p e t i t e . M.F. I s f e e l i n g s a b o u t s c h o o l and h e r s e l f had undergone a d r a s t i c change. The c h i l d r e n had made f r i e n d s and were g e t t i n g along q u i t e w e l l a t s c h o o l . While t h e g i r l s were i n f o s t e r care they had s p o r a d i c home v i s i t s w i t h t h e i r mother. The v i s i t s d i d n o t show s i g n s of any improving r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e mother and t h e two g i r l s . During some home v i s i t s t h e mother would l e a v e t h e g i r l s w i t h J .F. to b a b y s i t when she had o t h e r p l a n s . J u d y Robinson, a social worker, t e s t i f i e d about h e r c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n . A f t e r J a n u a r y 1979, t o t h e t i m e of t h e f o s t e r care placement, t h e Welfare Department r e c e i v e d twenty-one c o m p l a i n t s about t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a r e from e i g h t t o t e n d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e . D r . Robert E. Tompkins performed a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e mother i n February 1981. The r e s u l t s of t h e tests i n d i - c a t e d t h e mother possessed p e r s o n a l i t y traits t h a t would i n t e r - f e r e w i t h h e r a b i l i t y to provide a s t a b l e environment f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . D r . Tompkins found t h e mother had l i m i t e d i n t e l l e c t and demonstrated poor judgment. D r . Tompkins t e s t i f i e d t h e mother was l i k e l y to respond to h e r needs f i r s t and t h o s e of t h e c h i l d r e n l a t e r . D r . Tompkins t e s t i f i e d g i v e n t h e m o t h e r ' s per- s o n a l i t y and problems, c o u n s e l i n g would not be b e n e f i c i a l . D r . Tompkins f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d it was u n l i k e l y t h e mother would e v e r change to p r o v i d e a s t a b l e environment f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . On A p r i l 30, 1980, SRS f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r temporary i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y r e l a t i v e to J . F . , M.F. and R.W. i n t h e District Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t . On December 4 , 1980, SRS f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y and a u t h o r i t y t o a s s e n t to a d o p t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n . Hearings were h e l d on December 29, 1980, A p r i l 1 0 , 1981, and A p r i l 1 5 , 1981. The District Court e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law on J u l y 2 , 1981. Judgment was e n t e r e d on August 4 , 1981. The District Court d e c l a r e d J.F, M.F. and R.W. to be youths i n need o f c a r e and o r d e r e d t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l mother t e r m i n a t e d . The District Court f u r t h e r ordered permanent c u s t o d y o f t h e youths be awarded to SRS w i t h c o n s e n t to a d o p t i o n . J.F. was o r d e r e d t o be placed i n t h e c a r e of t h e n a t u r a l mother. The mother a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e a s f o l l o w s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e mother a t t h e time of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r tempo- r a r y i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y . 2 . Whether t h e a t t a c h i n g of a " r e p o r t to t h e c o u r t " to t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y and a u t h o r i t y to a s s e n t to adop- t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The mother a r g u e s t h e District Court should have appointed c o u n s e l to r e p r e s e n t h e r a t t h e t i m e SRS f i l e d t h e temporary i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y (TIA). She c l a i m s t h e p e r i o d from t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e T I A to t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y is used l a r g e l y t o compile e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t termina- t i o n of t h e p a r e n t ' s r i g h t s . Thus, t h e mother c o n t e n d s t h e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l is e s s e n t i a l t o i n s u r e due p r o c e s s . I n Lassiter v. Department of S o c i a l S e r v i c e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 452 U.S. 1 8 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640, 1 0 1 S.Ct. 2153, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t g r a n t e d c e r t i o r a r i to c o n s i d e r a n a t u r a l m o t h e r ' s claim t h a t appointment of c o u n s e l is e s s e n t i a l a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s t a g e . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court s t a t e d : " I n sum, t h e C o u r t ' s p r e c e d e n t s speak w i t h one v o i c e a b o u t what ' fundamental f a i r n e s s ' h a s meant when t h e Court h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , and w e t h u s draw from them t h e presumption t h a t an i n d i g e n t l i t i g a n t h a s a r i g h t to appointed c o u n s e l o n l y when, i f he loses , he may be d e p r i v e d of h i s p h y s i c a l l i b e r t y . It is a g a i n s t t h i s presumption t h a t a l l t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s i n t h e due p r o c e s s d e c i s i o n must be measured. "The c a s e of Mathews v. E l d r i d g e , 424 U.S. 319, 335, propounds t h r e e e l e m e n t s to be e v a l u a t e d i n d e c i d i n g what due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s , v i z . , t h e p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s a t s t a k e , t h e government's i n t e r e s t , and t h e r i s k t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e s used w i l l l e a d t o er- roneous d e c i s i o n s . W e must b a l a n c e t h e s e ele- ments a g a i n s t each o t h e r , and t h e n set t h e i r n e t weight i n t h e scales a g a i n s t t h e presump- t i o n t h a t t h e r e is a r i g h t to appointed coun- sel o n l y where t h e i n d i g e n t , i f he is u n s u c c e s s f u l , may lose h i s p e r s o n a l freedom." 452 U.S. a t 26. I n Lassiter, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court h e l d t h e t r i a l - - -- c o u r t d i d n o t err by f a i l i n g t o a p p o i n t counsel f o r a n a t u r a l mother i n a t e r m i n a t i o n proceeding where t h e mother d i d n o t a p p e a r a t t h e i n i t i a l c u s t o d y h e a r i n g and d i d not even speak to h e r r e t a i n e d lawyer a f t e r being n o t i f i e d of t h e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court h e l d , g i v e n t h e f a c t s b e f o r e them i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, t h e t h r e e E l d r i d g e factors d i d n o t overcome t h e presumption a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t t o appointed c o u n s e l , and t h a t due p r o c e s s d i d n o t t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e t h e appointment of c o u n s e l . T h i s Court a g r e e s w i t h t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t ' s h o l d i n g i n Lassiter, s u p r a , and has h e l d t h a t t h e same r a t i o n a l e s h o u l d be a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether appointment of c o u n s e l is n e c e s s a r y a t t h e TIA s t a g e as w e l l as t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s t a g e . I n , Matter of M.D.Y.R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 521, 582 P.2d 758, a n a t u r a l mother claimed t h e l a c k of appointed c o u n s e l a t a t e m - p o r a r y c u s t o d y h e a r i n g d e p r i v e d h e r of due p r o c e s s . T h i s Court h e l d : " I t is contended on b e h a l f of t h e mother t h a t i n t h i s case, a t t h e h e a r i n g f o r temporary l e g a l c u s t o d y , it should have been mandatory t h a t t h e c o u r t a p p o i n t c o u n s e l to r e p r e s e n t t h e mother. The s t a t u t e , (sect i o n 10-1310(12), R.C.M. 1947, now c o d i f i e d as sec- t i o n 41-3-401(12), MCA), however, is n o t couched i n mandatory language, and s t a t u t o r i l y a t least w e must s a y t h a t t h e m a t t e r of appointment of c o u n s e l , whether f o r temporary o r permanent l e g a l c u s t o d y r is l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . " 582 P.2d a t 764. S e c t i o n 41-3-401(12), MCA, s t a t e s , " [ t l h e c o u r t may a t any t i m e on its own motion o r t h e motion of any p a r t y a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m f o r t h e youth or c o u n s e l f o r any i n d i g e n t p a r t y . I' Thus, as we s t a t e d i n - M.D.Y.R. . -- t h e language is d i s c r e - t i o n a r y and appointment of counsel is n o t mandated i n e v e r y case. A s t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court h e l d i n Lassiter, s u p r a , t h e r e is a presumption a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t to appointed counsel and o n l y i f t h e t h r e e E l d r i d g e - f a c t o r s overcome t h i s presumption w i l l due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e appointment of c o u n s e l . The t h r e e f a c t o r s : p r i - v a t e i n t e r e s t s , government's i n t e r e s t and r i s k of e r r o n e o u s d e c i - s i o n s do n o t overcome t h e presumption i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . The p r i v a t e i n t e r e s t s are t h e p a r e n t ' s d e s i r e s and r i g h t s to t h e c u s t o d y of h e r n a t u r a l born c h i l d r e n and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r i g h t to l i v e a b o u n t i f u l l i f e f r e e of abuse and n e g l e c t . The government h a s i n t e r e s t s i n t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r e n t s as w e l l as an i n t e r e s t i n an a c c u r a t e and j u s t d e c i - s i o n . L a s t l y , we must c o n s i d e r t h e r i s k t h a t a p a r e n t w i l l be e r r o n e o u s l y s t r i p p e d of t h e i r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s because t h e y were n o t r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court weighed t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s i n - Lassiter -- . - -- s t a t i n g : " I f , i n a g i v e n case, t h e p a r e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s were a t t h e i r s t r o n g e s t , t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t s were a t t h e i r weakest, and t h e r i s k s of error were a t t h e i r peak, it could n o t be s a i d t h a t t h e E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s d i d n o t overcome t h e pre- s u m p f l o n a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t to appointed coun- s e l , and t h a t due p r o c e s s d i d n o t t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e t h e appointment of c o u n s e l . " 452 U.S. a t 31. I n t h e p r e s e n t case, a l t h o u g h t h e p a r e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s are s t r o n g , t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t is n o t weak nor were t h e r i s k s of error a t a peak. The S t a t e h a s a g r e a t i n t e r e s t i n a j u s t and a c c u r a t e d e c i s i o n f o r a l l p a r t i e s concerned and t h e r i s k of error is u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d . The mother c l a i m s t h a t t h e TIA s t a g e t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s t a g e is simply f o r t h e c o m p i l a t i o n of e v i d e n c e and t h a t a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l is t h e r e f o r e e s s e n t i a l . However, c o u n s e l was appointed f o r t h e mother on December 8 , 1980. The h e a r i n g s on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y were h e l d on December 29, 1980, A p r i l 1 0 , 1981 and A p r i l 1 5 , 1981. W e f e e l t h e appointment of c o u n s e l p r i o r to t h e s e h e a r i n g s d i d accom- modate t h e m o t h e r ' s r i g h t t o due process. W e cannot compare t h i s s i t u a t i o n to t h a t of a c r i m i n a l proceeding where a d e f e n d a n t r e q u i r e s e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l to a d v i s e him of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s a t t h e pretrial s t a g e . Here, t h e r e was no i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e SRS which would be a l t e r e d by t h e e n t r a n c e of l e g a l coun- sel. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e mother d i d n o t raise s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e as an i s s u e on a p p e a l . I f t h e r e was a s p e c i f i c eviden- t i a r y problem w i t h t h e SRS i n v e s t i g a t i o n , it seems t h e mother would have r a i s e d it, a l t h o u g h she d i d n o t . Thus, we h o l d t h e mother w a s n o t d e p r i v e d o f h e r r i g h t t o due p r o c e s s of law. The mother f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h e submission of a social w o r k e r ' s " r e p o r t to t h e c o u r t " along w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y is r e v e r s i b l e error. The s e c t i o n governing a b u s e , n e g l e c t and dependency p e t i t i o n s n e i t h e r r e q u i r e s n o r p r o h i b i t s a t t a c h i n g a s o c i a l w o r k e r ' s r e p o r t along w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n . See s e c t i o n 41-3-401, MCA. Thus, w e must look a t t h e facts of each case to d e t e r m i n e whether such a r e p o r t w i l l c o n s t i t u t e rever- s i b l e e r r o r . I n Matter of Moyer ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 173 Mont. 208, 567 P.2d 47, t h i s C o u r t d i d n o t r u l e s p e c i f i c a l l y on whether a p r e h e a r i n g r e p o r t i n s u p p o r t of a p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y is e r r o r . However, w e d i d state: " I t is t r u e t h a t a judge v i o l a t e s due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s i f he b a s e s h i s c h i l d c u s t o d y o r d e r on s t a t e m e n t s i n a w e l f a r e department r e p o r t w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h e a u t h o r s of t h e r e p o r t to t e s t i f y a t a h e a r i n g and be s u b j e c t t o cross-examination [ c i t a t i o n s omitted ] . I n a c i v i l case, such as t h e one a t b a r , which is t r i e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y , t h e r e is a presumption t h a t t h e t r i a l judge h a s d i s r e g a r d e d a l l i n a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e i n r e a c h i n g h i s d e c i s i o n . O t S u l l i v a n v. Simpson, 123 Mont. 314, 212 P.2d 435; Healy v. F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank, 108 Mont. 180, 89 P.2d 555." 567 P.2d a t 49. The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r e r r o r would be g r e a t where a t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d on r e p o r t s n o t supported by examination a t a c u s t o d y h e a r i n g . However, h e r e t h e r e p o r t i n q u e s t i o n was authored by J u d y Robinson, a social worker, who d i d t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g . Her t e s t i m o n y a t t h e h e a r i n g was e s s e n t i a l l y what was c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e p o r t . The mother d i d have ample o p p o r t u n i t y to cross- examine J u d y Robinson and p o i n t o u t any h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s or d e f e c t s i n t h e r e p o r t a t t h e h e a r i n g . A s s t a t e d above, t h e r e is a presumption t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s d i s r e g a r d e d a l l inad- m i s s i b l e material i n making its d e c i s i o n . Here, t h e mother h a s c i t e d n o t h i n g to r e b u t t h i s presumption. The mother a r g u e s t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n s e v e n t s which are too remote i n t i m e to be of p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . I n Matter of K.V. and K.A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - .- - - --- Mont . P .2d -- , 39 St.Rep. 1582; t h i s Court r u l e d on t h i s e x a c t argument s t a t i n g : " A p p e l l a n t b e l i e v e s t h a t it was improper f o r t h e District Court to base its t e r m i n a t i o n d e c i s i o n on e v e n t s which o c c u r r e d b e f o r e KA was a d j u d i c a t e d to be a youth i n need of care. A p p e l l a n t would r e q u i r e a showing by t h e S t a t e t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and c o n d i t i o n s which p r e d a t e d t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n continued to e x i s t a t t h e t i m e of t e r m i n a t i o n . While such a showing might be a p p r o p r i a t e i f SRS had o n l y r e c e n t l y begun to work w i t h t h e f a m i l y , i n a s i t u a t i o n where t h e p a r e n t h a s been a s s i s t e d and monitored by SRS o v e r a p e r i o d of y e a r s and t h e f a m i l y environment h a s n o t y e t s t a b i - l i z e d and p e r h a p s even d e t e r i o r a t e d , to r e q u i r e more would beg f o r e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n a t t h e expense of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . " 39 St.Rep. a t 1585. Here, SRS h a s had c o n t a c t w i t h t h e f a m i l y s i n c e 1967. W e c a n n o t s a y t h a t any of t h e evidence c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e p o r t was too remote to be of p r o b a t i v e v a l u e and t h u s i n a d m i s s i b l e a t t h e c u s t o d y h e a r i n g . W e f e e l compelled to mention t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e mother h a s r e l i e d h e a v i l y on M a t t e r of Swan ( 1 9 7 7 ) t 173 Mont. 311, 567 P.2d 898, t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from - - Swan. I n Swan, SRS f i l e d s e v e r a l w r i t t e n r e p o r t s w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n f o r . - . - permanent custody. The a u t h o r s of t h e reports d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t t h e c u s t o d y h e a r i n g . I n f a c t , t h e e n t i r e proceeding w a s peppered w i t h h e a r s a y evidence which was a l s o allowed a s testimony a t t h e h e a r i n g . For t h a t reason t h i s Court r e v e r s e d . However, i n t h e p r e s e n t case t h e a u t h o r of t h e r e p o r t d i d t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g and t h e mother was allowed to cross-examine. W e f i n d no error i n t h e submission of t h e r e p o r t when t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d g i v e n t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . W e a l s o f i n d it n e c e s s a r y to comment upon a d i s c r e p a n c y i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l c u s t o d y o r d e r . The r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s of t h e o r d e r s t a t e : " 3 . I T IS HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of [C.W.], n a t u r a l mother of t h e above- named y o u t h s [M.F. J.F. and R.W.] , a r e ter- minated. "5. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h e permanent c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l of t h e above-named y o u t h s be awarded to t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s of t h e S t a t e of Montana, and a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s be a u t h o r i z e d to a p p e a r i n any Court where a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a r e pending con- c e r n i n g [M.F.] and [R.W.] and a s s e n t to adop- t i o n . "6. I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t [J.F.] be p l a c e d w i t h [C.W. 1 ." The e f f e c t of t h i s o r d e r a s to J.F. is to t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l mother, p l a c e l e g a l c u s t o d y i n t h e SRS y e t g i v e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y to t h e n a t u r a l mother. While a f t e r a f i n d i n g of abuse and n e g l e c t a t a d i s p o s i t i o n a l hearing t h e t r i a l c o u r t may allow t h e p a r e n t s t o r e t a i n p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of t h e b) c h i l d r e n p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 41-3-406h(a), MCA. , once p a r e n t a l r i g h t s are terminated p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y by t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s is no l o n g e r an a l t e r n a t i v e . S e c t i o n 41-3-611, MCA, s t a t e s : " E f f e c t o f d e c r e e (1) An o r d e r f o r t h e term- -- - - i n a t i o n of t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p d i v e s t s t h e c h i l d and t h e p a r e n t s of a l l l e g a l r i g h t s , powers , immunities, d u t i e s , and o b l i - g a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to each o t h e r as provided i n t i t l e 4 0 , c h a p t e r 6, p a r t 2, e x c e p t t h e r i g h t of t h e i n h e r i t from t h e p a r e n t . " Here, it a p p e a r s t h e lower c o u r t o n l y intended to t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of M.F. and R.W. and w e remand to t h e lower c o u r t f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r . Judgment is af f irmed i n p a r t and remanded to e n t e r a p r o p e r f i n a l c u s t o d y o r d e r . W e concur: