Opinion ID: 888596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clear and Convincing Evidence Finding

Text: ¶ 35 Father and Mother next argue that the District Court erred when it failed to find that the circumstances that led to the termination of their parental rights to S.D. and T.D. were established by clear and convincing evidence. The parents contend that the District Court only found that clear and convincing evidence established that a previous judicial determination was made that reunification services need not be provided. They assert that the District Court's failure to enter a new finding in its termination order was in error. ¶ 36 Section 41-3-609(1)(d), MCA, states that [t]he court may order a termination of the parent-child legal relationship upon a finding established by clear and convincing evidence . . . that any of the following circumstances exist: (d) the parent has subjected a child to any of the circumstances listed in 41-3-423(2)(a) through (2)(e). . . . Because the termination of parental rights involves a fundamental liberty interest, a district court must adequately address each statutory requirement to determine if it has been established. In re A.P., ¶ 27. We have held that the party seeking to terminate parental rights must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory requirements for termination have been met. In re C.J.K., ¶ 14. ¶ 37 In the termination order the District Court found: Based upon the foregoing, clear and convincing evidence exists that 1. There has been a judicial determination that Reunification Services Need Not be Provided to birth-mother . . . and birth-father . . . based upon the following: a. The birth-parents' parental rights to T.D. and S.D., [A.H.D.]'s siblings, were involuntarily terminated in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, Montana; b. The circumstances related to that termination of parental rights are relevant to the parents' ability to adequately care for [A.H.D.]. In the March 12 order, the District Court prefaced its recitation of the findings of fact by stating the Court hereby determines the following [findings of fact], based upon clear and convincing evidence. . . . The court then specifically found that [t]he circumstances related to the termination of parental rights as to S.D. and T.D. are relevant to the birth-parents' ability to adequately care for the above-named child, A.H.D. ¶ 38 It is clear from a review of the District Court's two orders that the court addressed the applicable burden of proof and found that the State established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the circumstances related to the termination of Father's and Mother's parental rights to S.D. and T.D. were relevant to their ability to adequately care for A.H.D. As noted above, the termination order must be read in conjunction with the March 12 order, as the earlier findings were expressly incorporated into the termination order. In the March 12 order, the District Court based its findings on clear and convincing evidence. To the extent that the parents contend that the District Court failed to make a new clear and convincing evidence finding in the termination order and that over six months passed between the hearing on the matter of whether reunification services needed to be provided and the district court's ultimate termination of parental rights we note that, at the termination hearing, the court took judicial notice of the prior hearing testimony and proceedings, and the parents' counsel at the termination hearing stated that he and the parents agreed that it would be duplicative . . . and unnecessary to essentially present the same testimony over again. The District Court's finding was not stale as it was agreed that the hearing testimony that led to the March 12 findings of fact was still relevant and applicable. Accordingly the District Court did not err in relying on the testimony presented at the earlier hearings and incorporating earlier findings based on evidence presented at those hearings, as the testimony was still relevant to the termination proceedings. ¶ 39 DPHHS presented clear and convincing evidence establishing that the circumstances related to the termination of Father's and Mother's parental rights to S.D. and T.D. were relevant to their ability to adequately care for A.H.D. The District Court made specific findings as to the statutory requirements of §§ 41-3-609(1)(d) and 41-3-423(2)(e), MCA, and we hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father's and Mother's parental rights to A.H.D. ¶ 40 Affirmed. We concur: KARLA M. GRAY, C.J., and PATRICIA COTTER, JOHN WARNER and JIM RICE, JJ.