Matter of RB

No. 84-224

I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE MATTER OF

R.B., JR., a Y o u t h i n N e e d of C a r e .

APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of C a s c a d e ,
T h e H o n o r a b l e J o e l G. R o t h , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

COUNSEL O F RECORD:

For Appellants:

B r e t t C. Asselstine, G r e a t Falls, Montana
J e f f r e y T. P ' l c A l l i s t e r , G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a
Stephen H a g e r m a n , G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a

For Respondent:

Mike Greely, A t t o r n e y General, fielena, Montana
J. Fred B o u r d e a u , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana (Barbara B e l l , Deputy)

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : A p r i l 4, 1985

Decided: July 25, 1 9 8 5

Filed: JtJl, 2 1985

Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .

The f a t h e r o f R.B., Jr., a p p e a l s from an o r d e r o f t h e

Cascade County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , which d e c l a r e d R . B . , Jr., a

y o u t h i n need o f c a r e and a y o u t h abandoned by h i s f a t h e r .

Permanent c u s t o d y o f R . B . , Jr., i n c l u d i n g a u t h o r i t y t o con-

s e n t t o h i s a d o p t i o n , was g r a n t e d t o t h e Department o f S o c i a l

and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS). W e reverse t h e D i s t r i c t

Court's order terminating the father's parental r i g h t s and

remand t h e c a s e f o r f i n d i n g s and f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .

The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l a r e :

1. Was t h e r e a p r o p e r f a c t u a l and s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r

t h e c o n c l u s i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r aban-

doned h i s son?

2. Was t h e r e a b a s i s f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s

p a r e n t a l r i g h t s should be terminated because o f a f a i l u r e t o

comply w i t h an appropriate treatment plan and for finding

t h a t t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e f a t h e r r e n d e r i n g him u n f i t i s u n l i k e -

l y t o change?

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e f a t h e r and m o t h e r w e r e

married i n 1977. R.B., J r . , was b o r n on December 1, 1978.

The p a r e n t s w e r e d i v o r c e d on J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980. The m o t h e r

was awarded s o l e custody of t h e c h i l d . The f a t h e r was re-

q u i r e d t o pay s u p p o r t o f $125 p e r month.

On July 18, 1980, the District Court returned joint

custody of t h e c h i l d t o t h e m o t h e r and father. The c o u r t

ordered that, notwithstanding the divorce, the father be

a l l o w e d t o remain i n t h e home s o l o n g a s it was a g r e e a b l e t o

the mother. The court further ordered that the father

refrain from excessive drinking, refrain from physically

a b u s i n g o r t h r e a t e n i n g t h e m o t h e r o r t h e c h i l d , and c o o p e r a t e

w i t h SRS.
 In September 1981, the f a t h e r was incarcerated i n the

Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n t i c i p a t e d being

paroled i n J a n u a r y 1985. The r e c o r d d o e s n o t show i f t h a t

p a r o l e has taken place.

SRS f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d

on J u n e I , 1982. The m o t h e r v o l u n t a r i l y c o n s e n t e d t o g r a n t -

i n g SRS t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y . I n June 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court

awarded c u s t o d y f o r s i x months t o SRS. The m o t h e r r e g a i n e d

c u s t o d y i n November 1982. Following s i g n i f i c a n t problems i n

a f f o r d i n g p r o p e r c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d , SRS t o o k t h e c h i l d from

t h e m o t h e r and p l a c e d him i n f o s t e r c a r e . On F e b r u a r y 1 4 ,

1 9 8 3 , SRS a g a i n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y , w h i c h

was g r a n t e d . The boy h a s r e m a i n e d i n f o s t e r c a r e s i n c e t h a t

time.

On August 10, 1 9 8 3 , SRS f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r p e r m a n e n t

custody of t h e c h i l d . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on December 12 and

1 3 , 1983. The c h i l d was 5 y e a r s o l d a t t h a t t i m e . The k e y

findings of f a c t on the part of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e a s

follows:

"4. The y o u t h ' s p a r e n t s w e r e d i v o r c e d i n
1979. They had l i v e d t o g e t h e r s p o r a d i -
c a l l y over a f i v e (5) y e a r period ending
i n S e p t e m b e r 1981. Both p a r t i e s d r a n k t o
e x c e s s and ... [the father] often beat
up [ t h e m o t h e r ] i n f r o n t o f t h e y o u t h
w h i c h was v e r y d i s t r e s s i n g t o ... [the
youth]. [The f a t h e r ] ... worked a b o u t
t w e l v e months d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d .

"5. [The f a t h e r ] ... has n o t supported
t h e c h i l d s i n c e S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 8 1 and h a s
made no a t t e m p t t o m a i n t a i n c o n t a c t w i t h
t h e youth o r i n q u i r e a s t o t h e youth's
whereabouts or condition until [the
father] ... was a w a r e t h a t S o c i a l and
R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s had p e t i t i o n e d
t h e Court t o terminate [ t h e f a t h e r ' s ]
... rights."

The c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had abandoned t h e c h i l - d ,

and t h a t b o t h t h e m o t h e r and t h e f a t h e r w e r e u n f i t p a r e n t s .
The m o t h e r d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h e c o n c l u s i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t t h a t s h e was an u n f i t p a r e n t .

There i s evidence in the record to indicate that the

f a t h e r had some p a r e n t i n g s k i l l s p r i o r t o h i s i n c a r c e r a t i o n ,

but t h a t these w e r e limited. The r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t

t h e f a t h e r had o n l y worked a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e l v e months d u r i n g

t h e f i v e years preceding t h e hearing. A s o c i a l worker t e s t i -

fied that s h e had s e e n t h e f a t h e r and s o n i n t e r a c t and was

reluctant to see t h e f a t h e r regain custody. P e r h a p s most

s i g n i f i c a n t was t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e f a t h e r had n o t had any

c o n t a c t with t h e c h i l d f o r approximately t h r e e y e a r s , b u t we

must keep in mind that the father was incarcerated from

September 1981 t h r o u g h 1984.

The father testified t h a t he wrote from p r i s o n i n an

a t t e m p t t o c o n t a c t h i s s o n and t o f i n d o u t how h e was d o i n g .

When a s k e d i f t h e f a t h e r had made any a t t e m p t t o see h i s s o n ,

t h e mother t e s t i f i e d a s follows:

"Yes. H e a s k e d m e t h e names o f ...
[ o u r s o n ' s ] f o s t e r p a r e n t s , and I t a l k e d
t o Randy K o u t n i k [ a n SRS s o c i a l w o r k e r ]
a b o u t i t , and h e a s k e d m e n o t t o g i v e o u t
t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , and s o I w r o t e him and
s a i d I was n o t a l l o w e d t o g i v e t h a t o u t . "

The r e c o r d d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had

this testimony i n mind at the time it c o n c l u d e d t h a t the

father had made no attempt to maintain contact with the

youth. W e a r e d i s t u r b e d by t h e a p p a r e n t a t t e m p t t o k e e p t h e

f a t h e r from e s t a b l i s h i n g c o n t a c t w i t h h i s c h i l d .

The father a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he would l i k e t o have

custody o f h i s son a f t e r h i s p a r o l e . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t while

i n p r i s o n , he had been a t r u s t e e and had a c q u i r e d t h e s k i l l s

o f a lumberjack. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had r e c e i v e d h i s

GED, had gone t h r o u g h a c o u r s e o f t r e a t m e n t f o r a l c o h o l i s m ,

and attended Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. The father
t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e i s w i l . l i n g t o a c c e p t f a m i l y c o u n s e l i n g and

would l i k e t o leave t h e c h i l d with h i s sister f o r approxi-

mately s i x months while he is making the transition from

p r i s o n t o s c h o o l work.

W e have a . l s o c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e f i n d i n g s o f

t h e District Court r e g a r d i n g t h e e x c e s s i v e d r i n k i n g on t h e

part of the father, his violent conduct towards both the

m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d , and h i s f a i l u r e t o s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d .

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the

natural parents' r i g h t t o c a r e and c u s t o d y o f t h e i r c h i l d i s

a " f u n d a m e n t a l l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t " t o be p r o t e c t e d by fundamen-

t a l l y f a i r procedures.

"The fundamental liberty i n t e r e s t of
n a t u r a l p a r e n t s i n t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y , and
management o f t h e i r c h i l d d o e s n o t evapo-
r a t e simply because t h e y have n o t been
model p a r e n t s o r have l o s t t e m p o r a r y
custody of t h e i r c h i l d t o t h e S t a t e .
Even when blood relationships are
strained, parents retain a v i t a l i n t e r e s t
i n preventing t h e i r r e t r i e v a b l e destruc-
t i o n of t h e i r family l i f e . I f anything,
persons faced with forced d i s s o l u t i o n of
t h e i r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s h a v e a more c r i t i -
c a l need f o r p r o c e d u r a l p r o t e c t i o n s t h a n
do t h o s e r e s i s t i n g s t a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n
i n t o ongoing family a f f a i r s . When t h e
S t a t e moves t o d e s t r o y weakened f a m i l i a l
b o n d s , it must p r o v i d e t h e p a r e n t s w i t h
fundamentally f a i r procedures." Santosky
v . Kramer ( 1 9 8 2 ) , 455 U.S. 745, 753-54.

The Montana legislature based our Parent-Child Lega 1

Relationship Termination Act of 1981, S S 41-3-601 through

41-3-612, MCA, on a s i m i l a r Colorado a c t . See M a t t e r of

C.L.R. (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 685 P.2d 926, 4 1 St.Rep. 1436. Constru-

i n g t h e Colorado a c t , a Colorado c o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t :

"The t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s i s a
d e c i s i o n o f paramount g r a v i t y , and t h e
s t a t e must e x e r c i s e e x t r e m e c a u t i o n i n
terminating such rights. .. Hence,
s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e by t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h
the appropriate standards f o r termination
of a parent-child r e l a t i o n s h i p i s an
 absolute necessity. .. A t r i a l court
must a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s and r e s o l v e e a c h
specific requirement for termination
... Such d e t a i l e d r e s o l u t i o n o f a l l
i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l t o a d e c r e e of t e r m i n a -
t i o n substantially lessens the r i s k t h a t
a parent-child relationship will be
severed erroneously." People In I n t e r e s t
Of M.C.C. (Colo.App. 1 9 8 2 ) , 641 P.2d 306,
308 ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) .
W e e m p h a s i z e t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i n Montana o f a n a t u -

r a l p a r e n t ' s r i g h t t o c a r e and c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d i s a f u n d a -

mental liberty interest, which must be protected by

fundamentally fair procedures. We approve and adopt the

C o l o r a d o c o u r t ' s r a t i o n a l e t h a t a t r i a l c o u r t must a d e q u a t e l y

address each s p e c i f i c requirement of the statutes prior t o

termination.

Was t h e r e a p r o p e r f a c t u a l and s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e

c o n c l u s i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e f a t h e r abandoned

h i s son?

S e c t i o n 41-3-609 (1) ( b ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t :

" (1) The c o u r t may o r d e r a t e r m i n a t i o n
of the parent-child lega 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p
upon a f i n d i n g t h a t :

" ( b ) The c h i l d h a s been abandoned by h i s
p a r e n t s a s s e t f o r t h i n 41-3-102 ( 3 ) (d) ;
... 11

S e c t i o n 41-3-102 ( 3 ) ( d ) , MCA, s t a t e s t h a t a p a r e n t aban-

d o n s a c h i l d by:

". . . l e a v i n g him u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s
t h a t make r e a s o n a b l e t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e
parent o r o t h e r person does n o t intend t o
resume c a r e o f t h e c h i l d i n t h e f u t u r e o r
by w i l l f u l l y s u r r e n d e r i n g p h y s i c a l c u s t o -
dy f o r a p e r i o d o f s i x months and d u r i n g
t h a t period does not manifest t o t h e
c h i l d and t h e p e r s o n h a v i n g p h y s i c a l
custody o f t h e c h i l d a firm i n t e n t i o n t o
resume p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o r t o make perma-
nent l e g a l arrangements f o r t h e c a r e of
the child. . ."
 F i n d i n g of f a c t no. 5 by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t

the father had not supported the child and had made no

attempt e i t h e r t o maintain contact o r t o inquire a s t o the

y o u t h ' s whereabouts o r c o n d i t i o n . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s t e s t i -

mony t h a t the f a t h e r asked f o r the address of the child's

foster parents. Unfortunately, t h e record i s not c l e a r a s t o

when the father made the inquiry o r when the SRS social

w o r k e r i n s t r u c t e d t h e m o t h e r n o t t o r e v e a l t h e c h i l d ' s where-

abouts t o t h e father. This testimony appears c r i t i c a l t o a

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f abandonment s i n c e it c o n t r a d i c t s t h e c o u r t ' s

f i n d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o make any a t t e m p t t o i n q u i r e

a s t o h i s s o n ' s whereabouts o r c o n d i t i o n .

The r e c o r d shows t h a t t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f i l e d a mo-

tion, asking that the matter be remanded to the District

Court for supplemental proceedings. SRS i n d i c a t e d t h a t it

e x p e c t e d t o p r e s e n t t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e f a t h e r had b e e n i n a

pre-release c e n t e r i n B u t t e s i n c e J a n u a r y 1984 and t h a t he

had made no c o n t a c t w i t h S R S . A l t h o u g h t h e m o t i o n t o remand

was d e n i e d , this is a further reason f o r allowing t h e D i s -

t r i c t Court t o reconsider t h e matter.

On t h e i s s u e o f abandonment, we remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t

Court for additional findings of fact and conclusions in

l i g h t o f t h e s p e c i f i c r e q u i r e m e n t s o f $ 41-3-102(3) ( d ) , MCA.

Was there a basis for concluding that the father's

p a r e n t a l r i g h t s should be terminated because of a f a i l u r e t o

comply w i t h an appropriate treatment plan and for finding

t h a t t h e conduct o f the f a t h e r r e n d e r i n g him u n f i t was un-

l i k e l y t o change?

S e c t i o n 41-3-609 (1)( c ) , MCA., p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

I' (1) The c o u r t may o r d e r a t e r m i n a t i o n
of the parent-child I.ega 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p
upon a f i n d i n g t h a t :
 " ( c ) The c h i l d i s an a d j u d i c a t e d y o u t h
i n need o f c a r e and b o t h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
exist:

" ( i ) An a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t p l a n t h a t
h a s been approved by t h e c o u r t h a s n o t
been complied w i t h by t h e p a r e n t s o r h a s
n o t b e e n s u c c e s s f u l ; and

" (ii) The c o n d u c t o r c o n d i t i o n o f t h e
p a r e n t s r e n d e r i n g them u n f i t i s u n l i k e l y
t o change w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . "

This Court has consistently ruled that the rights of

parents of a youth in need of care cannot be terminated

unless the parents have failed to comply with a

court-approved treatment plan a s required under t h e s t a t u t e .

In Matter of C.L.R. (Mont. 1984), 685 P.2d 926, 928, 41

St.Rep. 1 4 3 6 , 1.439, w e s t a t e d :

"[Wle s o u n d a s t e r n w a r n i n g t h a t t h i s
Court w i l l not permit t h e termination of
parental r i g h t s without f i r s t establish-
i n g a t r e a t m e n t p l a n u n l e s s a showing o f
f a c t s c l e a r l y proves t h e i m p o s s i b i l i t y of
any workable p l a n . "

The r e c o r d d o e s n o t s e t f o r t h s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o c o n -

c l u d e w h e t h e r o r n o t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f a t r e a t m e n t p l a n was

attempted or is even feasible in this case. The father

a r g u e s t h a t he h a s changed s u f f i c i e n t l y s o t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t s h o u l d a p p r o v e a n a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t p l a n f o r him.

In t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court changes i t s conclusion

that the f a t h e r h a s abandoned the child, then we recognize

that the District Court will proceed under

§ ,
41-3-609 (1) ( c ) ( i ) MCA, t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n a p p r o p r i a t e

t r e a t m e n t p l a n c a n b e worked o u t .
 We r e v e r s e t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o r d e r and remand t h i s c a u s e

to the District Court for such further proceedings as it

W e concur: