Court Opinion

ID: 9403673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:10:58.333664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.597220
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                        06/20/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA                                  Case Number: DA 23-0302

                                         DA 23-0302
                                                                    FiLIED
                                                                     JUN 2 0 2023
                                                                   Bowen Groenwood
                                                                 Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                    State of Montana
 IN THE MATTER OF:

 S.F.,                                                                ORDER

               A Youth in Need of Care.

         Self-represented Appellant W.P. (hereinafter Father) petitions this Court for an out-
of-time appeal, seeking "parental rights and full custody" as well as "justice for his
daughter." Father includes various attachments, including a copy of his previous appeal
with this Court.
         M. R. App. P. 4(6) allows this Court to gyant an out-of-time appeal "[i]n the
infrequent harsh case and under extraordinary circumstances amounting to a gross
miscarriage of justice[1"
         Father states that he "has done no wrong." He further states that he never abandoned
his child and that he is a "great Daddy." Father notes that no "truth" exists.
         As Father references, he has already had an appeal with this Court. In re S.P., No.
DA 20-0314, 2021 MT 57N, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 221. This Court affirmed the Cascade
County District Court's 2020 decision to grant permanent legal custody of S.P. and to
terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights to S.P. S.P., ¶¶ 2, 16. We point out,
however, that the termination of Father' rights was due to specific reasons. This Court
stated that "Father did not seek placement of S.P. with him." S.P., lig 3, 11. This Court
explained "that the District Court terminated Father's rights under § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA,
for failure to successfully complete his treatment plan and his unlikelihood to change in a
reasonable time." S.P., ¶ 12.
       Father's renewed arguments find no footing here.           Father is precluded from
attempting to relitigate or to raise similar arguments, pursuant to the doctrines of res
judicata and collateral estoppel. "In contrast to res judicata, collateral estoppel bars
relitigation of an issue of fact or law previously litigated in a prior proceeding by the same
parties or their privies, whether under the same or a different legal claim." State v. Heine,
2018 MT 175, ¶ 16, 392 Mont. 103, 422 P.3d 102. Father has had appellate review of this
underlying case, and the rule of law seeks finality, not constant litigation. Huffine, ¶ 15.
Father is not entitled to an out-of-time appeal. Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that Father's Petition for an Out-of-Time Appeal is DENIED and
DISMISSED.
       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED as of this Order's date.
       The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel
of record and to Father personally.
       DATED this Z-1::)    day of June, 2023.

                                                                Chief Justice

                                                         , 8          --
                                                      ug-s
                                                                  Justices

                                              2