MATTER OF R B

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 : Decided: Filed: JtJl, 2 1985 Clerk A p r i l 4, 1985 July 25, 1 9 8 5 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 Jr., R.B., Cascade County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a p p e a l s from an o r d e r o f t h e Jr., which d e c l a r e d R . B . , 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 . Jr., Permanent c u s t o d y o f R . B . , 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 (SRS). and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s Court's order terminating the W e reverse t h e D i s t r i c t 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. was awarded s o l e custody of t h e c h i l d . The m o t h e r 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 custody of ordered 18, 1980, the District Court t h e c h i l d t o t h e m o t h e r and that, notwithstanding the returned father. divorce, the joint The c o u r t 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. refrain from The court excessive further ordered that the father 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, Montana S t a t e P r i s o n . paroled the f a t h e r was incarcerated i n the 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 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. c u s t o d y i n November 1982. The m o t h e r r e g a i n e d 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 . 1 3 , 1983. A h e a r i n g was h e l d on December 12 and 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 . findings of f a c t on the part of The k e y 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 [the father] often beat e x c e s s and 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 [the w h i c h was v e r y d i s t r e s s i n g t o worked a b o u t youth]. [The f a t h e r ] 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 was a w a r e t h a t S o c i a l and father] 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 . i s evidence There 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 A s o c i a l worker t e s t i - t h e f i v e years preceding t h e hearing. 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: ... 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 . " "Yes. 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 made no at the attempt to time it c o n c l u d e d t h a t maintain contact with the father had 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 custody o f h i s son a f t e r h i s p a r o l e . l i k e t o have 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 l i k e t o leave t h e c h i l d with h i s sister f o r approxi- would 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 part of the 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 father, m o t h e r and t h e c h i l d , The United his violent conduct towards both the 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 . States Supreme Court has ruled that the 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 natural parents' 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 fundament 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 evapor 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 destruct 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 Relationship 41-3-612, C.L.R. legislature Termination MCA, on a Act based of our 1981, Lega 1 Parent-Child S S 41-3-601 s i m i l a r Colorado a c t . (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 685 P.2d 926, 4 1 St.Rep. through See M a t t e r 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 Hence, terminating such rights. 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 .. of .. 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 will be a parent-child relationship 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 fundamentally interest, fair which procedures. must We be approve protected and adopt by 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 upon a f i n d i n g t h a t : lega 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p " ( 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 permanent 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 the father f a c t no. had not 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 supported attempt e i t h e r t o maintain the the f a t h e r asked the had made no The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s t e s t i - f o r the address of the child's Unfortunately, t h e record i s not c l e a r a s t o foster parents. when and 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 . mony t h a t child 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 whereabouts 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 tion, asking Court for 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- that the matter be remanded supplemental proceedings. to the SRS i n d i c a t e d District 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 A l t h o u g h t h e m o t i o n t o remand had made no c o n t a c t w i t h S R S . was d e n i e d , is a this 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. 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 On 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 t h a t t h e conduct o f the plan and for finding 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 parents of unless the a has youth consistently in parents need have of ruled care failed that cannot to the be rights of terminated comply with a court-approved treatment plan a s required under t h e s t a t u t e . In C.L.R. Matter St.Rep. of (Mont. 1984), 685 P.2d 926, 928, 41 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 establishi 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 that § f a t h e r h a s abandoned the District the child, Court will then we recognize 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 to the 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 District W e concur: Court for such further proceedings as it

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.