Matter of MF

No. 81-478 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IN THE MATTER OF M.F., J.F., and R.W., YOUTH IN NEED OF CARE. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Diane Barz, Judge presidinq. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gary E. Wilcox, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Ilarold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana Olsen, Christensen & Gannett, Billings, Montana Damon Gannett, Billings, Montana Submitted on briefs: September 30, 1982 Decided: November 24, 1982 Filed: wok & 4 1982 Mr. Justice John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. On December 4, 1980, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services petitioned the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, in and for the County of Yellowstone, f o r permanent c u s t o d y of J.F., M.F., and R.W. and for termination of all parental rights. After hearings on December 29, 1980, April LO, 1981, and April 15, 1981, the D i s t r i c t Court granted the p e t i t i o n . F i n a l j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d A u g u s t 4 , 1 9 8 1 , and t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r a p p e a l s . Petitioner is the natural mother of J.F., M.F., and R.W. Each o f t h e c h i l d r e n have a d i f f e r e n t n a t u r a l father. J.F. was b o r n A p r i l 11, 1 9 6 7 , i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. M.F. was b o r n May 11, 1970, in Billings, Montana. R.W. w a s b o r n December 9 , 1 9 7 4 , in Farmington , N e w Mexico. The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) f i r s t had contact with the n a t u r a l mother i n 1967. Especially during the time period from 1976 through 1981, SRS received numerous complaints alleging abuse and neglect of the three children. Incidents of physical abuse were sporadic and generally involved one of the mother's four husbands, o r many boyfriends. I n O c t o b e r , 1 9 7 6 , Ron C o o p e r , t h e m o t h e r ' s t h e n hus- b a n d , t h r e w R.W. against a w a l l . R.W., who w a s t h e n o n l y t w e n t y - two months old, suffered a broken leg as a result of the incident. I n November, 1 9 7 6 , M.F., then s i x years o l d , arrived a t school w i t h a swollen upper l i p . M.F. told her teacher t h a t h e r m o t h e r had struck her with a switch. I n t h e f a l l of 1979, M.F. I s t e a c h e r o b s e r v e d b r u i s e s on M.F. ' s l e g and f i n g e r m a r k s o n h e r arm. M.F. told her teacher that " t h e man" who was l i v i n g w i t h h e r m o t h e r a t t h e t i m e had k i c k e d h e r and g r a b b e d h e r arm. I n January, 1 9 8 0 , M.F. missed one day of school. The n e x t d a y M.F. t o l d h e r s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l t h a t C y r u s Watson had s t r u c k h e r and that she suffered cracked ribs as a r e s u l t o f the blow. Watson was l i v i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r a t t h e t i m e . A public health nurse, Lil Anderson, had several contacts with the children. I n 1 9 7 6 , L i l A n d e r s o n made h e r f i r s t v i s i t t o t h e f a m i l y home. She found t h e home t o be q u i t e d i r t y and n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e or no f o o d i n t h e home. Ms. Anderson gave the mother instructions regarding nutrition, cleanliness, and appropriate dress for the children. When M s . A n d e r s o n worked w i t h t h e f a m i l y on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , t h e h o u s e c o n d i t i o n s would improve. When s h e d i d n ' t see t h e f a m i l y f o r a p e r i o d of about one month she noticed the children's care would deteriorate. Several complaints during the f ive-year period concerned t h e children's general health and well-being. In June, 1978, a s o c i a l w o r k e r found J . F . s t a n d i n g on Rimrock Road a t 1 1 : 3 0 p.m. H e had b e e n r e p o r t e d s t a n d i n g t h e r e f o r t h r e e and o n e - h a l f hours. J.F. stated that he had left his mother's home because his m o t h e r ' s t h e n husband had u p s e t him. I n 1 9 7 9 , M.F. came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h K a t h y Rumph, a school t e a c h e r a t Newrnan E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l . A t Newman, M.F. was p l a c e d i n a p r o g r a m c a l l e d t h e r e s o u r c e room. To q u a l i f y f o r p l a c e m e n t i n t h e r e s o u r c e room a s t u d e n t m u s t be a t l e a s t o n e y e a r b e h i n d in normal grade level performance. Ms. Rumph t e s t i f i e d M.F. showed s i g n s of s e v e r e e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e . M.F. was d e f e n s i v e and r e m a i n e d i s o l a t e d from t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n . She was u n a b l e t o p l a y w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n and a t times would t a l k "baby t a l k . " While a t Newrnan, M.F. I s a p p e a r a n c e was g e n e r a l l y u n k e p t . Her c l o t h e s were g e n e r a l l y d i r t y and i l l - f i t t i n g . On s e v e r a l o c c a - s i o n s s h e came t o s c h o o l w i t h i n a p p r o p r i a t e d r e s s f o r t h e w e a t h e r conditions. M.F. had a p h y s i c a l p r o b l e m c a u s i n g h e r to w e t t h e bed a t n i g h t and would sometimes come t o s c h o o l a f t e r h a v i n g w e t t h e bed and had n o t b a t h e d o r showered i n t h e m o r n i n g . M.F. told Ms. Rumph that she was occasionally left alone for entire weekends w i t h o u t food to eat. Ms. Rumph and M . F . ' s classroom t e a c h e r a r r a n g e d t o f e e d M .F. b r e a k f a s t e v e r y d a y when s h e a r r i v e d a t school. A f t e r M.F. was f e d a good b r e a k f a s t h e r a c a d e m i c p e r - f o r m a n c e would improve m a r k e d l y . I n December 1 9 7 9 , the f a m i l y moved to a n a r e a j u s t o u t s i d e of B i l l i n g s known a s Lockwood. Sherry Lithander , the principal o f Lockwood S c h o o l , had c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t a c t w i t h M.F. and J . F . Ms. L i t h a n d e r t e s t i f i e d M.F. was p l a c e d i n a program s i m i l a r to t h e p r o g r a m a t Newman S c h o o l . S p e c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s were made to f e e d M.F. e v e r y morning. Ms. L i t h a n d e r t e s t i f i e d M.F. of t e n came t o s c h o o l w i t h d i r t y and i m p r o p e r c l o t h i n g . M.F. had p r o b l e m s i n t h e classroom and t e n d e d t o f a n t a s i z e . A g a i n , M.F. was p l a c e d i n a special l e a r n i n g p r o g r a m t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r h e r a c a d e m i c de- f iciencies. I n A p r i l 1 9 7 9 , M.F. was p l a c e d i n f o s t e r care. The s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l r e c o g n i z e d a s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t i n M.F. I s physical and e m o t i o n a l w e l l - b e i n g . M.F. was w e l l - d r e s s e d and w e l l - f e d and began to f e e l b e t t e r about h e r s e l f . She became b e t t e r a c c e p t e d b y h e r classmates. I n May 1 9 7 9 , M.F. was returned t o h e r mother and h e r improvement s u b s i d e d . Susan Betz a l s o had contact with M.F. a t Lockwood School beginning i n December 1 9 7 9 . Ms. Betz conducted numerous tests w i t h M.F. The t e s t r e s u l t s showed M.F. e x h i b i t e d some l e a r n i n g disability. Ms. B e t z found M.F. to be two t o two and o n e - h a l f years behind her academic age level. M.F. showed a certain e v a s i v e n e s s which a t t r i b u t e d to h e r p e r f o r m a n c e a t s c h o o l and h e r l a c k of f r i e n d s . I n August, 1 9 8 0 , M.F. and R.W. were a g a i n p l a c e d in foster care. Both Ms. Lithander and Ms. Betz noticed considerable i m p r o v e m e n t i n M.F. ' s b e h a v i o r and a p p e a r a n c e d u r i n g t h e 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 school year. Ms. L i t h a n d e r a l s o had c o n t a c t w i t h R.W. during the 1 9 8 0 - 8 1 s c h o o l y e a r when R.W. was enrolled i n kindergarten. R.W. showed s i g n s o f slow d e v e l o p m e n t and s u f f e r e d from e n v i r o n m e n t a l and cultural deprivation which was attributed to her home environment during her pre-school years. Collette Melia, a neighbor of the family at Lockwood, testified about the c h i l d r e n ' s home c o n d i t i o n s . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t o n s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s s h e f e d R.W. b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d would ask h e r f o r food. On o n e o c c a s i o n Mrs. Melia o b s e r v e d R.W. out- side the family's t r a i l e r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 : 1 5 a.m. trying to g e t in. A l t h o u g h t h e m o r n i n g t e m p e r a t u r e was v e r y c o l d , R.W. was wearing only a l i g h t jacket. R.W. was c r y i n g b u t no o n e would o p e n t h e d o o r f o r R.W. to e n t e r t h e h o u s e . On o n e o c c a s i o n i n August 1979, the mother l e f t the three c h i l d r e n sJ-eeping i n t h e t r a i l e r . A r o a s t which was l e f t c o o k i n g i n t h e o v e n c a u g h t f i r e and n e i g h b o r s had t o remove t h e three children. On A u g u s t 8 , 1 9 8 0 , M.F. and R.W. were p l a c e d i n f o s t e r care w i t h Kaye N e l s o n . Mrs. N e l s o n t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e g i r l s 1 con- d i t i o n when t h e y f i r s t a r r i v e d a t h e r h o u s e . Mrs. N e l s o n s t a t e d t h e g i r l s seemed d e s p e r a t e f o r l o v e and a f f e c t i o n and would c l i n g o n a n y o n e who would allow i t . When t h e g i r l s a r r i v e d t h e y were b o t h v e r y h u n g r y and R.W. was v e r y s k i n n y . The two l a c k e d t a b l e m a n n e r s and would h i d e f o o d i n t h e i r rooms. M.F. had a v e r y l o w self-esteem. Although R.W. could talk, M.F. usually had to t r a n s l a t e f o r R.W. when s h e s p o k e . A t the t i m e of the hearing b o t h g i r l s showed e x c e l l e n t o v e r a l l i m p r o v e m e n t . R.W. was b e t t e r a b l e t o communicate and had a n o r m a l a p p e t i t e . M.F. I s feelings a b o u t s c h o o l and herself had undergone a drastic change. The c h i l d r e n had made f r i e n d s and were g e t t i n g a l o n g q u i t e w e l l a t school. While t h e g i r l s were i n f o s t e r care t h e y had s p o r a d i c home v i s i t s w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r . The v i s i t s d i d n o t show s i g n s of a n y i m p r o v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e two g i r l s . During some home v i s i t s t h e m o t h e r would leave the g i r l s with J .F. t o b a b y s i t when s h e had o t h e r p l a n s . Judy Robinson, a social worker, testified about her contact with the children. A f t e r J a n u a r y 1 9 7 9 , t o t h e t i m e of t h e f o s t e r care placement, the Welfare Department received twenty-one c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a r e from e i g h t t o t e n d i f f e r e n t people. Dr. Robert E. Tompkins p e r f o r m e d a psychological evaluation of t h e mother i n February 1981. The r e s u l t s of t h e tests i n d i - c a t e d t h e m o t h e r p o s s e s s e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t h a t would inter- f e r e with her a b i l i t y to p r o v i d e a s t a b l e environment for the children. Dr. Tompkins f o u n d t h e m o t h e r had limited intellect and demonstrated poor judgment. Dr. Tompkins testified the m o t h e r was l i k e l y t o r e s p o n d t o h e r n e e d s f i r s t and t h o s e of t h e children later. Dr. Tompkins t e s t i f i e d g i v e n t h e m o t h e r ' s per- s o n a l i t y and p r o b l e m s , c o u n s e l i n g would n o t be b e n e f i c i a l . Dr. Tompkins f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d it was u n l i k e l y t h e m o t h e r would e v e r change to provide a stable environment for the children. On April 30, 1980, SRS filed a petition for temporary investigative authority relative to J . F . , M.F. and R.W. in the D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Thirteenth Judicial District. On December 4 , 1 9 8 0 , 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 c u s t o d y and a u t h o r i t y t o a s s e n t t o a d o p t i o n of the children. H e a r i n g s were h e l d on December 29, 1980, April 10, 1981, and April 15, 1981. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law on July 2, 1981. Judgment was entered on A u g u s t 4 , 1981. The District Court d e c l a r e d J.F, M.F. and R.W. t o be y o u t h s i n need of c a r e and o r d e r e d the parental r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l mother terminated. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y of t h e y o u t h s be awarded t o SRS w i t h c o n s e n t to a d o p t i o n . J.F. was o r d e r e d t o be p l a c e d i n t h e c a r e of t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r . The mother a p p e a l s . The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e a s f o l l o w s : 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e m o t h e r a t t h e time of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r tempo- rary investigative authority. 2. Whether t h e a t t a c h i n g of a " r e p o r t to t h e c o u r t " to t h e p e t i t i o n f o r p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y and a u t h o r i t y to a s s e n t to adop- tion constitutes reversible error. The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have a p p o i n t e d counsel to represent her at the time SRS f i l e d the temporary i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y (TIA). She c l a i m s t h e p e r i o d from t h e issuance of t h e T I A t o t h e f i l i n g of the p e t i t i o n f o r permanent c u s t o d y is u s e d l a r g e l y t o c o m p i l e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t e r m i n a - tion of the parent's rights. Thus, the mother contends the assistance of counsel is essential to insure due process. I n L a s s i t e r v. D e p a r t m e n t of S o c i a l S e r v i c e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 4 5 2 U.S. 18, 68 L.Ed.2d 640, 1 0 1 S.Ct. 2153, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider a natural mother's claim that appointment of counsel is essential at the termination stage. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : " I n sum, t h e C o u r t ' s p r e c e d e n t s s p e a k w i t h o n e v o i c e a b o u t what ' fundamental f a i r n e s s ' h a s m e a n t when t h e C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , and w e t h u s d r a w from them t h e presumption t h a t an i n d i g e n t l i t i g a n t h a s a r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l o n l y when, i f h e loses , he may be d e p r i v e d o f h i s p h y s i c a l liberty. I t is a g a i n s t t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t a l l t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s i n t h e due p r o c e s s d e c i s i o n m u s t be m e a s u r e d . "The c a s e o f Mathews v. E l d r i d g e , 424 U.S. 3 1 9 , 3 3 5 , p r o p o u n d s t h r e e e l e m e n t s to be evaluated in deciding what due process requires, viz., the private interests at s t a k e , t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s i n t e r e s t , and t h e r i s k t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e s used w i l l l e a d t o er- r o n e o u s d e c i s i o n s . W e m u s t b a l a n c e t h e s e ele- m e n t s a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r , and t h e n s e t t h e i r n e t w e i g h t i n t h e s c a l e s a g a i n s t t h e presump- t i o n t h a t t h e r e is a r i g h t to a p p o i n t e d coun- sel o n l y where the indigent, if he is u n s u c c e s s f u l , may lose h i s p e r s o n a l f r e e d o m . " 452 U.S. a t 26. I n - siter, L a - -- s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t err by f a i l i n g t o appoint counsel for a natural mother in a termination proceeding where the mother did not a p p e a r a t t h e i n i t i a l c u s t o d y h e a r i n g and d i d n o t e v e n s p e a k to her retained lawyer after being notified of the termination hearing. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d , g i v e n t h e f a c t s b e f o r e them i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, t h e t h r e e E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s d i d n o t overcome t h e presumption a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d counsel, and that due process did not therefore require the a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l . This Court agrees with the United States Supreme Court's h o l d i n g i n L a s s i t e r , s u p r a , and h a s h e l d t h a t t h e same r a t i o n a l e s h o u l d be a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p p o i n t m e n t of counsel i s n e c e s s a r y a t t h e TIA s t a g e as w e l l as t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s t a g e . In, Matter o f M.D.Y.R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 521, 582 P.2d 758, a n a t u r a l mother claimed t h e l a c k of appointed counsel a t a tem- p o r a r y c u s t o d y h e a r i n g d e p r i v e d h e r of d u e p r o c e s s . T h i s Court held: " I t is c o n t e n d e d on b e h a l f o f t h e m o t h e r t h a t i n t h i s case, a t t h e h e a r i n g f o r t e m p o r a r y l e g a l c u s t o d y , it s h o u l d h a v e b e e n m a n d a t o r y t h a t t h e c o u r t a p p o i n t counsel to r e p r e s e n t the mother. The statute, (secti o n 1 0 - 1 3 1 0 ( 1 2 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now c o d i f i e d as sec- t i o n 41-3-401(12), MCA), however, is n o t c o u c h e d i n m a n d a t o r y l a n g u a g e , and s t a t u t o r i l y a t l e a s t w e must s a y t h a t t h e m a t t e r of appointment of c o u n s e l , whether f o r temporary o r p e r m a n e n t l e g a l c u s t o d y r is l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . " 582 P.2d a t 764. S e c t i o n 41-3-401(12), MCA, states, " [ t l h e c o u r t may a t a n y t i m e on i t s own m o t i o n o r t h e motion of any p a r t y appoint a guardian ad litem for the youth or counsel for any indigent party. I' T h u s , as w e s t a t e d i n - M.D.Y.R. -- t h e l a n g u a g e i s d i s c r e - . t i o n a r y and a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l is n o t mandated i n e v e r y case. A s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n Lassiter, s u p r a , t h e r e is a p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and o n l y if t h e t h r e e E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s overcome t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n w i l l d u e - p r o c e s s r e q u i r e appointment of c o u n s e l . The t h r e e f a c t o r s : pri- v a t e i n t e r e s t s , g o v e r n m e n t ' s i n t e r e s t and r i s k of e r r o n e o u s d e c i - s i o n s do n o t overcome t h e presumption i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . The private interests are the parent's desires and rights to the c u s t o d y o f h e r n a t u r a l b o r n c h i l d r e n and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r i g h t to l i v e a b o u n t i f u l l i f e f r e e of a b u s e and n e g l e c t . The g o v e r n m e n t has i n t e r e s t s i n t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r e n t s as w e l l as a n i n t e r e s t i n a n a c c u r a t e and j u s t d e c i - sion. Lastly, w e m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e r i s k t h a t a p a r e n t w i l l be erroneously stripped of t h e i r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s because t h e y were not represented by counsel. The United States Supreme C o u r t w e i g h e d t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s i n ---s s i t e r s t a t i n g : La -- .- " I f , i n a g i v e n case, t h e p a r e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s were a t t h e i r s t r o n g e s t , t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t s were a t t h e i r w e a k e s t , and t h e r i s k s of e r r o r were a t t h e i r p e a k , it c o u l d n o t be s a i d t h a t t h e E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s d i d n o t overcome t h e pre- s u m p f l o n a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t to a p p o i n t e d coun- s e l , and t h a t d u e p r o c e s s d i d n o t t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l . " 452 U.S. a t 31. In the present case, although the parent's interests are strong, the S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t is n o t weak n o r were t h e r i s k s of error a t a peak. The S t a t e h a s a g r e a t i n t e r e s t i n a j u s t and a c c u r a t e d e c i s i o n f o r a l l p a r t i e s c o n c e r n e d and t h e r i s k of e r r o r is u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d . The m o t h e r c l a i m s t h a t t h e TIA s t a g e t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s t a g e is s i m p l y f o r t h e c o m p i l a t i o n of e v i d e n c e and that assistance of counsel is therefore essential. However, c o u n s e l was a p p o i n t e d f o r t h e m o t h e r on December 8 , 1980. The hearings on the petition for permanent custody were held on December 2 9 , 1 9 8 0 , A p r i l 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 and A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 . We feel the appointment of counsel p r i o r to these hearings did accom- m o d a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s r i g h t t o d u e process. W e cannot compare t h i s situation to that of a criminal proceeding where a defendant requires e f f e c t i v e counsel t o a d v i s e him o f his constitutional r i g h t s a t the pretrial stage. Here, t h e r e was no i n v e s t i g a t i o n b y t h e SRS w h i c h would be a l t e r e d b y t h e e n t r a n c e of l e g a l coun- sel. In addition, t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t r a i s e s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e as a n i s s u e on a p p e a l . I f t h e r e was a s p e c i f i c e v i d e n - t i a r y problem w i t h t h e SRS i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t seems the mother would h a v e r a i s e d it, although she did not. Thus, we h o l d t h e mother was not deprived of her right to due p r o c e s s of law. The m o t h e r f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h e s u b m i s s i o n of a s o c i a l w o r k e r ' s "report to the court" along with the petition for permanent custody is reversible error. The section governing abuse, n e g l e c t and d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n s n e i t h e r r e q u i r e s n o r p r o h i b i t s a t t a c h i n g a s o c i a l worker's report along with the p e t i t i o n . See s e c t i o n 41-3-401, MCA. T h u s , w e m u s t l o o k a t t h e f a c t s of e a c h case t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r s u c h a r e p o r t w i l l c o n s t i t u t e rever- sible error. I n Matter of Moyer ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 2 0 8 , 567 P.2d 47, this C o u r t d i d n o t r u l e s p e c i f i c a l l y on w h e t h e r a p r e h e a r i n g r e p o r t i n s u p p o r t of a p e t i t i o n f o r p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y is e r r o r . However, we did state: " I t is t r u e t h a t a j u d g e v i o l a t e s d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e m e n t s i f he b a s e s h i s c h i l d c u s t o d y o r d e r on s t a t e m e n t s i n a w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t r e p o r t w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h e a u t h o r s of t h e r e p o r t t o t e s t i f y a t a h e a r i n g and be s u b j e c t t o cross-examination [ c i t a t i o n s omitted ] In . a c i v i l c a s e , s u c h as t h e o n e a t b a r , which is t r i e d before the court without a jury, t h e r e is a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l judge h a s disregarded all inadmissible evidence in r e a c h i n g h i s d e c i s i o n . O t S u l l i v a n v. Simpson, 1 2 3 Mont. 3 1 4 , 212 P.2d 435; H e a l y v. F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank, 1 0 8 Mont. 1 8 0 , 8 9 P.2d 5 5 5 . " 567 P.2d a t 49. The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r e r r o r would be g r e a t w h e r e a t r i a l c o u r t relied on reports not supported by examination at a custody hearing. However, here the report i n q u e s t i o n was a u t h o r e d b y Judy Robinson, a s o c i a l w o r k e r , who d i d t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g . Her t e s t i m o n y a t t h e h e a r i n g was e s s e n t i a l l y w h a t was c o n t a i n e d i n the report. The m o t h e r d i d h a v e ample o p p o r t u n i t y to cross- examine J u d y Robinson and p o i n t o u t a n y h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s or defects in the report at the hearing. A s s t a t e d above, t h e r e is a presumption that the trial court has disregarded all inad- m i s s i b l e m a t e r i a l i n making i t s d e c i s i o n . Here, t h e m o t h e r h a s c i t e d n o t h i n g to r e b u t t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n . The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n s e v e n t s which a r e too remote i n t i m e to be o f p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . I n Matter of K . V . and K.A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , -.------ Mont . P .2d -- , 39 S t . R e p . 1582; t h i s C o u r t r u l e d on t h i s e x a c t argument s t a t i n g : " A p p e l l a n t b e l i e v e s t h a t it was i m p r o p e r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o base i t s t e r m i n a t i o n d e c i s i o n o n e v e n t s which o c c u r r e d b e f o r e KA was a d j u d i c a t e d t o be a y o u t h i n need o f c a r e . A p p e l l a n t would r e q u i r e a s h o w i n g by t h e S t a t e t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h p r e d a t e d t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n c o n t i n u e d to e x i s t a t t h e t i m e of t e r m i n a t i o n . While such a s h o w i n g m i g h t be a p p r o p r i a t e i f S R S had o n l y r e c e n t l y begun t o work w i t h t h e f a m i l y , i n a s i t u a t i o n where t h e p a r e n t h a s been a s s i s t e d and m o n i t o r e d b y SRS o v e r a p e r i o d o f y e a r s and t h e f a m i l y e n v i r o n m e n t h a s n o t y e t s t a b i - lized and perhaps even d e t e r i o r a t e d , to r e q u i r e more would beg f o r e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n a t t h e expense of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . " 39 St.Rep. a t 1585. Here, SRS h a s had contact with the f a m i l y s i n c e 1967. We c a n n o t s a y t h a t a n y o f t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e p o r t was too remote t o be o f p r o b a t i v e v a l u e and t h u s i n a d m i s s i b l e a t t h e custody hearing. We feel compelled to mention t h a t although t h e mother has r e l i e d h e a v i l y on M a t t e r of Swan ( 1 9 7 7 ) t 1 7 3 Mont. 3 1 1 , 5 6 7 P.2d 898, t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from -- Swan. In Swan, .. -- SRS f i l e d several w r i t t e n reports with the p e t i t i o n for permanent custody. The a u t h o r s of t h e reports d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t the custody hearing. I n f a c t , t h e e n t i r e proceeding w a s peppered w i t h h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e which was a l s o a l l o w e d a s t e s t i m o n y a t t h e hearing. For t h a t reason t h i s Court r e v e r s e d . However, in the p r e s e n t case t h e a u t h o r of t h e r e p o r t d i d t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g a n d t h e m o t h e r was a l l o w e d to c r o s s - e x a m i n e . W f i n d no e rr o r i n e t h e s u b m i s s i o n of t h e r e p o r t when t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d g i v e n these circumstances. We a l s o find it necessary to comment upon a d i s c r e p a n c y i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l custody order. The r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s of the order state: " 3 . I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of [C.W.], n a t u r a l m o t h e r of t h e above- named y o u t h s [M.F. J . F . and R.W.] , a r e ter- minated. "5. I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h e p e r m a n e n t c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l of t h e above-named y o u t h s be awarded t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l a n d R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s of t h e S t a t e of Montana, and a representative of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation S e r v i c e s be a u t h o r i z e d t o a p p e a r i n any C o u r t w h e r e a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a r e p e n d i n g con- c e r n i n g [M.F.] and [R.W.] and a s s e n t to adop- tion. "6. I T I S HEREBY ORDERED that [J.F.] be p l a c e d w i t h [C.W. 1 ." The e f f e c t o f t h i s o r d e r a s to J . F . is to t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r , p l a c e l e g a l c u s t o d y i n t h e S R S y e t give physical custody to the natural mother. While after a f i n d i n g o f a b u s e and n e g l e c t a t a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t may allow t h e p a r e n t s to r e t a i n physical c u s t o d y of the b) children pursuant to s e c t i o n 41-3-406h(a), MCA. , once p a r e n t a l r i g h t s are t e r m i n a t e d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y by t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s is no l o n g e r an a l t e r n a t i v e . S e c t i o n 41-3-611, MCA, states: "-f e c t -o f d e c r e e (1) An o r d e r f o r t h e term- E f- i n a t i o n of t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p d i v e s t s t h e c h i l d and t h e p a r e n t s of a l l l e g a l r i g h t s , p o w e r s , i m m u n i t i e s , d u t i e s , and o b l i - g a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to e a c h o t h e r as p r o v i d e d i n t i t l e 4 0 , c h a p t e r 6, p a r t 2, e x c e p t t h e r i g h t o f t h e i n h e r i t from t h e p a r e n t . " Here, it a p p e a r s t h e lower c o u r t o n l y i n t e n d e d t o t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f M.F. and R.W. and w e remand t o t h e lower c o u r t f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r . J u d g m e n t is a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and remanded t o e n t e r a p r o p e r f i n a l custody order. W e concur: