Opinion ID: 884214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Practicality of treatment plan.

Text: The State additionally petitioned to terminate the father's parental rights pursuant to & sect; 41-3-609(1)(c) (since renumbered § 41-3-609(1)(e)) and (4)(b), MCA, on the grounds that a treatment plan was not practical in light of the father's incarceration. Because we reverse the District Court's determination that the father abandoned his son in the fall of 1994, we must next address this issue and determine whether the District Court erred in finding that a treatment plan was impractical in light of the father's incarceration. Section 41-3-609(4)(b), MCA, provides an exception to the requirement that the court approve an appropriate treatment plan prior to the termination of parental rights and states that: (4) A treatment plan is not required under this part upon a finding by the court following hearing if: (b) the parent is incarcerated for more than 1 year and a treatment plan is not practical considering the incarceration.... In terminating the father's parental rights, the court recognized that no treatment plan was in effect, and concluded that one was unnecessary pursuant to § 41-3-609(4)(b), MCA. As the court correctly noted, the father had been incarcerated for more than one year. Accordingly, the court then turned to the question of whether a treatment plan was practical considering the father's incarceration. The court found that such a plan was in fact impractical because the father's release date was not known. The court further noted that the father had shown minimal interest in the child, and had provided the mother and W.Z. with little financial or emotional support in the past. Although the District Court found that a treatment plan was impractical in light of the father's incarceration, the record does not support such a finding. We have previously stated that we sound a stern warning that this Court will not permit the termination of parental rights without first establishing a treatment plan unless a showing of facts clearly proves the impossibility of any workable plan. In re Matter of R.B., Jr. (1985), 217 Mont. 99, 105, 703 P.2d 846, 849 (citing In re Matter of C.L.R. (1984), 211 Mont. 381, 386, 685 P.2d 926, 928 (superseded by statute as stated in In Matter of Baby Boy Scott (1988), 235 Mont. 253, 767 P.2d 298)). The record presently before this Court contains no such showing of facts. It is apparent from the record that neither DFS nor the social worker involved in the case ever presented the father with a proposed treatment plan, or even discussed with him the possibility of implementing one. At the termination hearing, the social worker testified that it would be difficult to implement a plan for the father while incarcerated, but conceded that certain prison programs might have been incorporated into a potential treatment plan. In finding a treatment plan would be impractical, the court also relied, in part, on the fact that the father had shown little interest in his son in the past. Although the fact that the father has historically shown little or no interest in his son's life indicates he might well have failed to comply with any court-approved treatment plan, given the fact that no treatment plan was ever attempted, such a finding is mere speculation. The present record simply does not support the District Court's finding that implementation of a treatment plan would have been impractical under the circumstances of this case. We hold the State failed to demonstrate that a treatment plan would have been impractical in light of the father's incarceration. Having held that the District Court erred in finding the father abandoned W.Z., and erred in finding a treatment plan was impractical, we reverse the court's termination of the father's parental rights. TURNAGE, C.J., and GRAY, NELSON and TRIEWEILER, JJ., concur.