Court Opinion

ID: 881841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:48:26.894306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:01.551632
License: Public Domain

No.     89-464

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                    1990
                                      -
                                      .

IN THE MATTER O F R.B. a/k/a R-K.
AND R.J.K., youths in Need of Care-
                                                          CLERK OF SUPHEM. C O U ~ 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 , P o t i : :
                                                                 lncl.
                Jennifer M. Anders, Asst. Atty. General, Helen761 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