May 27 2008
DA 07-0716
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2008 MT 179N
IN THE MATTER OF
R.S., III,
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 03-8
Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Joslyn Hunt, Assistant
Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Hon. Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General; John Paulson,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Fred R. Van Valkenburg, Missoula County Attorney; James McCubbin,
Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: April 24, 2008
Decided: May 27, 2008
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court 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 P.B. is the biological mother of R.S., III (R.S.), and other children. Following earlier
proceedings, the Department of Public Health and Human Services petitioned for termination
of her parental rights to R.S. The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, held a
hearing on the petition and subsequently entered an order granting the petition and
terminating P.B.’s parental rights. It determined pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, that
P.B. had not complied with an appropriate and court-approved treatment plan and the
conduct or condition rendering her unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.
The court also determined that termination was in R.S.’s best interest. P.B. appeals.
¶3 While P.B. asserts her noncompliance with the treatment plan was not entirely her
fault, she generally does not contest the District Court’s findings under § 41-3-609(1)(f),
MCA. Instead, she relies on § 41-3-445(9), MCA, which provides in part that a district court
may terminate a planned permanent living arrangement if it finds the circumstances of the
child or family have substantially changed and the best interests of the child are no longer
being served. P.B. asserts the District Court’s ultimate finding that termination was in R.S.’s
best interest contradicted findings it had made in earlier orders approving permanency plans
2
and long-term custody arrangements, as well as language in certain stipulations by the
parties. We need observe only that § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, provides a separate, independent
and, here, unchallenged basis for terminating P.B.’s parental rights.
¶4 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our
1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum
opinions. It is manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that this appeal is without
merit because the District Court’s findings are clearly supported by sufficient evidence, its
conclusions on legal issues are controlled by settled Montana law, and it clearly did not
abuse its discretion.
¶5 Affirmed.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
We concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3