January 6 2015
DA 14-0289
Case Number: DA 14-0289
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2015 MT 2N
IN THE MATTER OF:
N.D.,
A Youth in Need of Care.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DN 12-38
Honorable Karen S. Townsend, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jeanne M. Walker, Hagen & Walker, PLLC, Billings, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Jonathan M. Krauss,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney, Diane Conner, Deputy
County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 10, 2014
Decided: January 6, 2015
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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 J.D., natural father of the minor child N.D., appeals from the District Court’s order
filed April 3, 2014, terminating his parental rights as to N.D. and awarding permanent
custody to the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. We affirm.
¶3 J.D. argues that the District Court erred in that order by failing to protect N.D.’s
interest in maintaining a relationship with her older sister P.D., and that the order
terminating his parental rights should therefore be reversed. P.D. intervened personally
in the proceeding to protect her interest as a sibling in continued contact with her sister
N.D.
¶4 J.D.’s argument fails to acknowledge the effect of the District Court’s subsequent
May 9, 2014 order in this same case, approving a permanency plan for N.D. That order
resulted from an April 15, 2014 permanency hearing held pursuant to § 41-3-445, MCA,
which gives the District Court discretion to enter orders that it determines to be in the
best interest of the child. The County Attorney, on behalf of the State, a social worker,
CASA representatives, and the attorney for P.D. were present at the hearing. All either
agreed or did not object to amending the permanency plan to provide for N.D.’s adoption
“with continued contact between the siblings allowed when such is in [N.D.’s] best
2
interest.” While J.D. contends that the District Court cannot enforce the continued
sibling contact provision, Montana law provides otherwise. Section 42-5-301(1), MCA.
¶5 The District Court accounted for and protected the interest that N.D. and P.D. have
in continuing their sibling contact and that interest may be protected after adoption. This
disposes of J.D.’s argument that the District Court did not protect the siblings’ interest in
continued contact with each other, and he has not raised any other challenge to the
termination of his parental rights.
¶6 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. The issues in
this case are controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly
interpreted. The District Court properly exercised its discretion, and there was not an
abuse of discretion.
¶7 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
3