July 30 2013
DA 13-0091
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2013 MT 213N
IN THE MATTER OF:
S.M.G., N.M., M.M., R.M.G.,
Youths in Need of Care.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause Nos. DDN 11-054, -055, -056, -057
Honorable Julie Macek, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Lucy Hansen, Hansen Law Firm; Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy A. Hinderman,
Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana
John Parker, Cascade County Attorney, Jennifer I. Quick, Deputy County
Attorney; Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 3, 2013
Decided: July 30, 2013
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve
as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Appellant E.M. appeals the order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade
County, terminating her parental rights. We affirm.
¶3 E.M. (Mother) is the biological mother of S.M.G., N.M., M.M., and R.M.G.
(collectively “the children”). The Department of Public Health and Human Services
(Department) removed the children from Mother’s care on May 11, 2011, when it received a
report of the children’s home environment and Mother’s chemical dependency issues. The
report claimed that Mother was “passed out drunk” while caring for the children.
¶4 Officers who arrived at Mother’s apartment had to awaken Mother. Mother seemed
intoxicated while the children were running around unsupervised. The officers contacted
Child Protective Services.
¶5 Child Protective Services found unsanitary conditions at the apartment, safety issues
and neglect of the children. All the children reported to have medical issues that stem from
neglect of health and sanitation, including head lice and scabies. Mother failed to treat these
health issues. All of the children were under 10 years old at this time.
2
¶6 Mother has a history with the Department. The Department had removed the children
in 2006 after the Department discovered unsafe living conditions. The Department placed
the children into foster care at that time.
¶7 The Department filed a petition for emergency protective services, temporary legal
custody, and adjudication of the children as youths in need of care on May 18, 2011. The
District Court held a hearing on the petition several months later. Mother stipulated at the
hearing that the children were youths in need of care and agreed to work with the
Department on a treatment plan.
¶8 Mother failed to complete the treatment plan and continued to deny that she had a
chemical dependency problem. Mother was incarcerated in November 2011 for several days
and then again in December for drug possession. Mother’s failure to follow the treatment
plan and her arrests prompted the Department to extend temporary legal custody for another
six months.
¶9 The Department filed a petition for permanent legal custody and termination of the
mother’s parental rights pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, on October 18, 2012. The
District Court held a hearing. The District Court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law
and an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. The District Court determined by clear
and convincing evidence established that the conduct and condition rendering Mother unfit
was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Court found that the children already
had been in foster care for 18 months and that Mother had failed to follow the treatment plan.
Mother appeals.
3
¶10 Mother argues on appeal that the treatment plan was inappropriate. Mother further
argues that the Department failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that her
conduct made her unfit and unlikely to change within a reasonable time. We review for an
abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to terminate parental rights. In re R.M.T., 2011
MT 164, ¶ 26, 361 Mont. 159, 256 P.3d 935.
¶11 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. It is
manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us that the treatment plan was
appropriate, and that substantial evidence supports the District Court’s findings of fact and
that the District Court correctly applied the law to these facts.
¶12 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
4