MATTER OF N A
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No, 02-354 iK T H E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MQXTANA IN THE MATTER OF N.A.. B.A., and A.A., a* Youths in Need of Care. APPEAL FROM: 'Jt"" . .? <p@' br. \ r District Court ofthe Sixteenth Judicial District, for the County of Custer, Honorable Gary L. Day, Judge Presiding 111 and COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appella~it: John ttoutr, Attortley at Law, Forsyth, Montana For Respondent: f-lonorable M ~ k e McCrath, Attorney General; Ilka Becker, .4ss1stant Attorney General: Helena, Montana Garry P. Bunke, Ass~stant Attorney General; ivi11es City, M o n t a ~ ~ a Colecn I Magcra, County Attorney. Wles Crty, Montana Janettc Krutffeldt Jones, Krut~feldt : Jones. LLP, M ~ l e C ~ t y , 8 s Montana (Guardran Ad Lrtem) Submrtted on Briefs Decldcd Filed: October 3 1,2002 Dece~nber 2002 12, J~;stiec Ricc dclivcred thc <)pinion of the Court. Jirt-i ''1 Stel.cn. nat:ii-al father of B.;\. and ;\.;\., appciils from the fjndiflgs of h c t and conclusions of la\\ entered by the Sixteenth Judicial District <:our[. Ciisier County. tern~inatinghis parental rights and alvarding perinanent lcgai e~istodyto the Montana Department of Public flealth and Huinan Ser~ices (Departn~en!)~ b ~thc right to consent to th adoption. Steven also appeals the Llistrict Court's denial of his request for post-termination \ isiratiotr 11 lth the ctt~ldren.lye affirm. "I 2 Steven raises the following issues on appeal: :;3 1 . Did the District Court err in terminating the parental rights of Steven? 2. Did t h e District Court err w h e n it denied Stwen ririration with the children q4 after terminating his parental rights? "'5 ~i Shclly is the natural mother of B.A., A.A. and N.X(chilcii.crr),currently ages 7,3:and 14 respectibely. Shell) does not appeal the tern~inat~oti her parental r ~ g l ~ r Ross is thc of s natural father of N , A Ross d ~ not appear in the District Court nor cornplcte any courtd ordered requirements. Ross does not appeal the termination of his parental rights. Stcvcn is the natural father of B.A. and A..k Although Steven is not the natural father of N,;"\. Steven requested that the District Court allow hirn post-termination 1-isitation and contact with all three children. Shelly and Steven were never married and havc had only an intermittent relationship over approsirnateiy eight ycars, Steven has ncvcr taken an activc role in parenting the children. 76 'The Departnrent first became iiivolved with Sheiiy's children i n early 1990 and snhstantiated : i report of physical rregicct related to her severc inroxicarion. 111 1 9i the 9 ~ Ilepartmcnt dociimcntcd a secoiid, similar incident invoI\;ing physical neglect, exccssivc use of alcohol, and interpersonal problems with fanlily members. Five years inter, in 1906: thc Depafltnent received four additional reports of physical abuse by Shelly. S~ibscij~~cnt to the fourth report. the i>cpartment re~novcdthe children from Shelly's borne and placed the cl~ildreis thster care. Sllortly thereafter, the children were returned to Shelly's carc with its family based serb-ices for ninety days. In December 1996, Shelly stipulated and agrced ro consent to the Departrilent's Petition for Temporary Investigative i'\utl~oriiy Protective and Serviccs (TIA). 17 1 The t)epartment again became invo1.r cd with Shelly in Mach 1997: and again placed N.A. and B.A. in licensed fostcr care because ofanother incident of scvere intoxication. The District Court continued the Department's TIA through June 1997. It granted temporary legal custody (TLC) to the llepartment in that same month. The children were again returricd to Shelly's hornc with family based services in hfay 1998. 7'1ie District Court subscqucntiy distnisscd the T1.C in September 1998. 78 1 The Department did not become involved with Shelly and her childrcn again until February 1000 when both the Dcpartrnent and the bliles Ciiy Police Dcparrmenr responded to a call of possible dot~~cstic abuse bet~veerrShe!!)- and her ti-iend Sain. Because of hcr condition. Shelly w a s acln~ittcitto ilcaconcss Psychiatric ('enter fi>rthe third tinlc in March 1999. Alsct in March, because ofconcern that Shellj's coriditiorr clid not make it possible f i ~ r 3 her to properly take care ofthe children: Shcliy's inothcr and stepfather took tho children to rireir Jmoriie ii: blobridge, So~rrh ilakota. 9 In July 1099, the Miles City Pelice Ikpartrnen? charged Shcliy with a Dljl and careless driving afier she bccame severely intosicatcd anc! drove her car over 21 dike. Because of her condition, the Police Department transported Slrelly to i>eaconcssPsychiatric Center. By August 1999, the Department ltad begun working in conjunction with Shelly's therapist in an attempt to stabilize Shelly's living situation. 1 By Octobcr. Shelly was seeing her therapist and taking her rnedieatio~ison a regular basis. She obtained appropriate housing and felt she was stable enough to begin parenting hcr ciiildren again. Slie thus went to Mobridgc to pick up the child re^^ from her mother and stepfather and returned with them to Miles City. .'II! I The Department thereafter attempted to provide the developmental assessment, educational, and suppol? services necessary to keep the children safely in Shelly's hame, itleluding arranging and paying for daycare and ei~rollingB..4. in the i-leadstart prosram. However, on October 2 1, 1999, the Miles City Police 1)epartment arrested Kurt Kiltie, a friend of Shelly, and charged him with a 13C:l. B.,4. was found in his vehic!e. After an investigation, the Department determined that Shelly had known that Kiltie had been drinking all day when she allowcd four-year-old B.A. to ride in thc car fi-ith hirn '12 In January 2000, Shelly did not allow the Depart~ltcntto transport 4.4. to an ei,alrtalictn that ixrcl bcen planned weeks in advance. I h c Dcpartnxnt also receiveti another report of physical abuse of B.A. by Shelly and two additional reports of i\._i.'s 4 dcvciopr?~ental delays and lack iii'routir;~ nredicai carc. AFier i-iiriirer i~:restigatii:r? oithcsc rcports. 'ihc ilcpart~mciii removed tlie ckildi.cn friirn Sl~ciiy's horrle ai~il piaccd illem ir? f i ~ e r care. lit3 The Department filcd its petition for Tt.,C' on .lanuary 18- 2000. Both Sl~cily and Steven were present at the scheduled hearing. The minutes of the hearing reflect that !lie parties reached an agreement wherein Sl~elly and Steven stipulatect to temporary legal custody ofthe children. The record reflects, ho~vvc:cr., that Stever: did ~:otsign the written stipulation. 'The llcparlrnent requested a continuance of TI,C on Octobcr 6>2000. Shellyattended the November 9 hearing ~ i t her attorney. Steven, a!thouyh legally served, did not h and attend the I~eztrirtg did not sign his tour?-ordered trcatrncnt plan. Shelly again stipulated to temporary legal custody. 7; 14 The Dcpartincnt again petitioned for co~itinuance TL.C on Fehnrary 0,20(i I . In an of affidavit atlachcd to the petition. Terc Gabel (Gabel), a social worker with the Ilepartment, sratcd that she had sent three letters to Stev~cn, December 4 and 13; 2000, and on January on 8,200 !,requesting that Steven cotne to Gabcl's office to discuss his court-orilered ircatn~cnt plan. Steven eventually met with (ialxl on January 9, 2001, and January 12, 2001. According to Gabel's affidavit, Steven stated that he did not feel he coriid parcnt the children. eyen with the help of Shelly, but that he does want to visit the childreri on occasion, 7he affidavit also noted that Steven was comfortable tvith the children bcing in foster care and that he dicl not feel he could complete the cow?-ordered !reatmenr plan. Steven h i d not to that paint requested any visitation with the children. 5 4115 On March 12, 2001- wo tiays prior to the hearing on tire i3cpart1;rcnt's motion ti. exacnd Ti.(., Steven fiieii a moriorr with the sour1 k)r-iisitaiioin of'B.A. and r'i.A., asking to see them elerq. weekend, every other holiday, and one-half of the summer.. Aker thc March 14 hearing; a t \vhich Shclly and Steven were both prcsent wirh counsc!, the Disrrict Court ordcreil, in part that Steven should exercise supervised visitation. Srcven signed the treatment plan. 7116 The District C'oun also adjudicated the children as youths in need of case. finding by a preponderance of the evidence that dismissal of the petition ~ o u l create a substantial risk d of harn-i to the chiidrcn or he a detriment to 'rile children's physical oi. psyclrological wcllbeing. it also ordered that Steven complete a treatment plan in an attempt to address his mental and eniotional stability issues and parenting deficiencies and to provide him ~vith the necessary skills to provide for the children's physical, emotional and medical needs. l'he treatment plan rcquircd Steven to participate in medical anii psychological evaluations; maintain an adequate home environment, maintain income from cmplc>m~cnt. attend counseling, maintain regular visitation with his children pursuant to a visitation agreement, and maintain weekly co~itact with his counselor. oil7 The i>cpac?ment filed a petition for permanent legal custody anci termination of parental rights with right to consent to adopt on Jtinc 1.1; 2001. The petition citcd Stcvcn's Fdilure to obtain a medica! and!or psychological diagnosis and trtatment through a physician or psychologist, fiiilure to attend fa~nil?r,indivi:dual counselt:ng scssions, fi~ilure fblioxv his to co~~~iselor'sxccornn~endations, and failure to maintain \vcckly contact with his social worker. 6 I8 Steven filed a second motioi~ visitirtio~i B.A. and A.A. on August 3,2001. i!;e for of brief statts thatt '"altllougii Stevcri hirnseif- &cis he n ~ i i y ir?iidcqu;irz t bc the iastiidi;ii be o parent of these clhildren, hc docs want significant visitatioii o f thc children." Srevcil argiicd in the brief that Shelly had interfered with his attempted visitation and that he had not been allowed any nieaningful visitation by the Department. 1 9 The Department objected to Steven's motion, noting that it was seeking termination of Steven's parental rights, that Steven had open visitation but failed to avail himself of the opportunity. that Steven failed to appear at his last scheduled visitation and that Steven had requested no f ~ ~ r i h e r visitatiotl with the children after rrtissing his pret-ious scheduled visitatio~~. The court-appoinied special advocate, Toni Gaglia, 1-cporrcd to the court on December 13,200 1, that Steven l~act made no req~rest visitation to the i>epartrncnt sii~cc for June 10, 2001. 770 The District Court held its temiination hearing on December 13 and 14,2001. By that time, R.A. and A.A. had been in foster care for a period of 24 months. Steven was nor prcscnt at tlie December 13 hearing because he had begun a new medicaiion and was "real anxious." The District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order on February 5,2001. termrnat~ngShellq'i. Ste\,en's, and Ross's parental rlghts to the chiidlen and granting pernianent legal custody of R.A. and A.A. to the Department ivitlz authority to conselit to adoption. l h c District <lou:~ appointed U.A.'s maternal grandmother, Linda, as guti~.dian cctnser~i~tor and ofK.\., with ihe right of the f>epa~?ment seek icrminatinri upon rci proper petition to the court. The District Court denied Steven's request for post-xennination 7 supervised visiti~tion R.A. and A.rl,. concluding that it wouid he ~lriiair no?in thi: bcsi of and interests c?f B.1:. or ,A,:\. to continue supervised visitation after rerminatioi~of Stcven'r parcnia! rights. *21 Stevcn now appeals the termiliation of his parcnttrl rights and the deniai o f post- termination visitation. STAiYIIA RI) OF RE J/IE M" 7/22 \Ve review a district court's decision to terminate parental rights to detcrininc whether the district court abused its disct-etion. Ifr re E.K., 2001 MT 279: 37 P.3d 690, 7 71 31, 307 %font. T 3 1.. 32Y1 31. On review of a decision to terminate parental rights, ., determine whether the district cou~.t'sfindings of fact supporting ternrination are clcarly el-roncous. i i t re H.I%, 2001 M7' 288, 1' 13, 307 Mont. 412,T 13, 37 P,3d 736,q 13. h finding of fact is clearly erroneous i f it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the c o u ~misapprehended t the effect of the evidence, or if upon on reviewing the record, this Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court made a mistake. ia r e E.K. r 71 31. In reviewing a district court's conclusions of lam-,we determine if tlley are correct. In re E.K, l j 31. T23 in determining whether to terminate parental rights; the district court is bound io give primary consideration to tile physical, tnenral, and cr~iotional conditions and nerds of the chiliirei~. tli~is best interests of the childrtcn arc cf paramount conccn-i in a parental rights the tertninaxion proccediilg and take precedence ovcr ihc parcntal rights. li?re E.K., ' 3 3 (citing Ifr re ,/.Ct:, 2001 MT 86, 71 8, 305 Mont. Idc),f[ 8, 2-3 P.3d N 6 ; 7 X j . IVe will pl-esumc that 8 a district court's decision is correct and will not disturb it on appeal uiilcss tlierc is a nisrakc of iav: or a finding of fact not suppodcd by substaatiai cvidcncc that tvouid a~noiini a clear to ah~isc ifiseretion. Ln rc E.K., [! 33. of l')I.~C~C~~~~iOlV Ti24 1 . Did the District Court err in terminating the parental rights of Steven? '25 The District Court concluded that Steven did not comply with cithcr treatment plan in that he did not attend counseling, Failed to maintain consistent contact xvith his children and vc)luntarilydiscontinued visitation altogether. The District Court relied on the testimony of psychologist Dawn Birk, Ph.D, finding that Ste\en suffered front bipolar disorder wit11 psychotic features and that Steven woi~ldunlikely be able to independently carc fbr the children because of his severe mental illness. *26 The District Court further relied on Dr. Birk's tcstimony tl~at Stevcn presented as confused and angry, and that Steven's mental stability could deteriorate rapidly if confronted \vith thc stress of parenting. finally concluding that the children should not be placed in Ste\:cn's care absent supervision. 7127 The District Court also relied oti Steven's o\vn testimony about his recent problems, including problenis with his psycho tropic medication which caused hirn to bc very sick and suicidal. Further, Steven was committed to the Montana State 'ilentai Hospital and was living in a group home at the time oftfre termination hearing. 'l'hc District Cour-t rclied on Steven's tcstimony that be was unablc to provide care for his cl;ildr.cn bccaiise of rhc limit'atioils of his incntai health, his iivins irrriingzn?enis,and his Iazk ofrcccnl conlaci s i t h the children. (128 The District Court thus ccincludcd that Steicn ljilcd to complctc his treatment p1a1-1 and that the condiiiiin making l l i ~ r iurialtlc to parent his childrcn was ul~likely change to within a relrsonable time. 2 On appeal, Steven does not argue that the District Court erred in adjudicating the cliildren as youths in need of care, nor does he challenge the appropriateness of his two treatment plans. Rather, Steven argues that the cvidence presented by the Department was insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that lie did not complete his treatment plan or that the cotlditiorl rinaking him unfit to parent is tirrlikely to cl~angewirhin a reasonable time. Stc!l.cn contencis that the e\:idence from the i>epartmetri's maill tvitncss, Dr. f31rk, is inconsistent aud co~tldbe construecl a? favoring cont~nuedcontact rather than termination of parental rights. 730 The party seeking to terminate parentai rights "mmust present clear and convincing evidence! to the district C~LII-t the prerequisite statutory criteria for tcrminatiocl have been that met." 111re T , 2002 M'F 1 7 1 , l 26, 3 10 Mont. 506, ri 26, 5 1 P.3d 1 141. ..j 26 (citation omitted). In cases involving the terniination of parcntal rights: clear and coiivincing pniof is simply a rcyuiremcnt that a preponderance of thc evidence be definite, clear, and convincing, or that a pai-tic:~lar issue must be clear!>-established by a pl-epor?dcranccofthe cviclence or by a cles~rprcpcxncierancc of pi-<>of. This rcqiiircmen; docs noi cal! for unansivcrablc or conclusive evidence. The yuality of prooi; to be clear and conviricing, is 10 somcwbcrc Iset\i,ccn thc rule in ordinar? civil iascs and the rci~uircri~ei;t ? ci-irni;:al o c t h a i is, it iiiusr bc morc than a mcrc prepondcranrt; LIE i l O t iicyonii a rcasonirhic 7 20 (citation omitted). t-e hf. T.? doubt. iii 63! Steven contcnds that the evidence did not clearly and convincingly establish r~oncomplianec wit11 the treatment plans, and, notlvithstanding actmission of his inability to independently parent his children, the evidence submitted docs not indicate that ire is rrnable to parent when he is "nicciically-compliant," Steven argues that the counseling he receiwd from Dr. Birk satisfied the requirement in his treatnicrlt plan that he obtain a medical and/or psychological diagnosis anci rreatrnent through a physician or psychologist. Steven also subniirteci, in May 2001. a certificate of eolnpletiorr for the "its aii about Parcnting" series which, he contends, fulfilled the requirement that he cornplcte parenting classes. Sti'vcti also notes that lie participated in visitation with his childrcn until a relapse of his lnental illness in June 2001, at a time \\,hen his doctors bverc ~ I the process of changing his medications and I whcn he ztlso yuit taking his nlcdication for a short time, caiising him to become sick and suicidal. ?-;32 Steven characterizes the t c s t i ~ ~ ~ o n y Birk as testimony that "may be based on of Dr. conjecture" because no evidence existed that Steven ahnsrid or neglected the children and becausc thc testimony of other \vitnesses st~pporretl tjnding that Steven anci the children a ., care for eaclt other and wanted to be together, ''. - not always then at least sort~etirnes. it "33 . . 1 hc Departrner~t responds that, by S t e ~ e n ' s i w n ~ iidntission. he i s unah1r to parent either ofhis children, he did not comply with the treatment plan's requirctnrnts to rnaintain 11 .. . \veekly contact with h i s social :viirkcr and failed to request fun?:cr s-isiiailon with B.?. and Strvcn restiiied at the tcnxinaiion hcarir~gthat lic kimv lie cculil set up visits ~ r i t h ihc children i f hc merely reyucsted !i~i<hcr visitation from thc Dcpar?r~.ient, Stcs-en testiiied that he dici not do so because he "wasn't in the right frame of mind" when he was having t r a ~ ~ b l e with his medication in June 2001. However, he also testified that he had not yet, as of December, attempted to set LIPvisitation with thc children. 534 The Department also noted Dr. Birk's testiniolly that Steven suffered from severe bipolar disorder and was showing psychotic katures, primarily paranoid delusions. Dr. Birk testified that, at the time she cvaluared Steven, it \\-as unlikcly "rat he could care for the children due to his severe mental health problems. 135 'lhc (i~~ardian Lircr~l irif (Ciuitrdian) forthechildren like~viseresponds by Steven's that, own admission, his rncntal illness made him incapable of being a full-time parent, ;I role that he admittedly did not want to assume, and that he admittedly failed, due to l~~ental illness. to maintain committed contact with B.A. and A.A. The Guardian also contends that Steven's psycliological evaluation froin Dr. Birk did not satisfy the requiremeilts of the treatnicnt plan because it merely resulted in a diagnosis without further meaningful treatinent, essentially arg~ting that Steven failed to tblloc~Dl.. Birk's rccomn~endariorrs obtain further medical to ancl:or ~ i ~ c ~ hcaltlr care. ital '3 j6 Stcvenis contention tha: he did subst:inlii:Ily cornpl:. .iviih his trcatrna~t plan igi~tores this Court's long-standing principle that partial compliance or sr~bstantialcompliance with 12 a treatment pian is insufficient. ! 30, 33 P.3d 616, "'30 ; it2 tjzze Mattei. ofl1.N.; 2001 Ml'200, 7 30: 306 Most. 278, (citing 112 file 1t,ti1f1e/*i)ji,l.~'~4.. M'i'35, T 4.5. 208 tlont. 237, 4 5 ZOiiC .; 995 P.Zd 327, ! 45). The record indicates a113Steyen conccdcs that he did nut participate in ; visitation with the children as required by the treatment plan, and that he did not request visitation from the Department even after his mental problems in June 2001, even tl~ough conceding he knew the Oepartment w~ouldschedule visitation upon request. By Steven's olvn admission, he did not mai~ltain\vcekly contact with his social worker. 737 Further, we find compelling the Cjuardian's argumcilt that Dr. Birk's psychological evaluation did not satisfy the requirements of the treatment plan. According to Dr. Birk's own testimony, she did not anticipate becorning a treatment professional for Stcien once the evaluation was completed, but anticipated only the limited invol\cement required is? completing with Steven a brief psychological evaluation. Dr. Birk testified that she recommended to Steven that he become involved in counseling and obtain information relevant to parenting, such as participating in parenting classes. ';38 At the permanent legal custody heaving, Steven testified that he had star?cld secing a counselor by the name of Stcve Lee and that he felt he sllould continue in counseling. The record docs not demonstrate the extcnt ofthis counseling with Stcve Lee, whether it was only a single session or niorc, nor does the record contain any ~vrittcn evaluation or progress report by Mi. Lee. Stcvcn's tcstimot.iy mcrcly- reflects that hc had "startcd" seeing i l r . t,ce. 3 in light of tile above evidence. however. we conclude that the District (I'vurt's detenn~natioilthat Stelen d ~ d comply nith his treatment plan pursuant to $ 41-3not I? OOO(l)(f), SIC'A. is supported by substantial evidence and is thus, rrot clearly el-roncous, re H.H., v!: it? By Steven's ox-ri-r: admissicins, hc did not succcssfi~liy corr~plctc trcaimcnr tile plan, and vy.e cannot premise enor in the District Court simply becausc Srevcn may- have partial11 co~nplicd tth a port~onof the treatment plan by bcglnnlng couiiseling sometline m near the tinie of thc permanent legal custody hearing. 740 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err in concluding that Stwen did not comply vi tth the treatment plan and that he, therefore. faded to s u c c c s s f ~ ~ l l ~ complete the treatment plan bipolar 7-31 'The District Court also received substantial evidence to conclude that Str~.en's disorder and sevel-c mental illness rcndcri~lghim unfit to parent was iirtlikcly to change with~n reasonable time a 142 Dr. Birk testified that, at the time she evaluated Steven. it was unlikely that he could care for the chlldren due to his severe mental health problerns Dr. E3irk found particirlarly disconcerting Steven's confusion about the date of his appointment, cone-~sion about some of the reasons for b e ~ n g tn\ol\ed in a mcntal health evaluatzon, and h ~ refusal to allou 111s s attorney to provide Dr. Birk with any infor-mation. According to Dr. Birk. Steven was concerned that people were trying to harm him in some waq. Accordingly, Dr. t3irk tcstificd: And so given his somewhat conliised state, as ~vellas his responses to the standardized assessments which suggest a significant degree of anger, I was quite fearful that he might deteriorate very rapidly if he had the children u~lsupewisedand they bccame unruly and that he wouldn't be able to handle the situation, which might lead to some type of an abusive-type situation. 1143 Dr. Birh reco~nnre~~ded further coili~selingwhich Steven subseyucntiy hiled 10 succcsslii!ly comp?ctc. Furahci-nore, Steven's testimony a; rhi: permancot legal custody hearing cicnronsiratcii titat his corrdition vuiis r~ot t resolved or medically controlicd when y lie tcstificd that he did not want to he a hll-time parent bcca~isc just did no1 tilink hc was he "nmentally capable" at that point. Steven was too tlnstahle and "anxioiis" to evcn attend the first day of thc permanent legal custody hearing. As pt-eviously noted, thc children had already been in foster carc for 23 months by the time ofthc hcaring, Steven had been gillen sufticie~it time to comply with the treatment plan if he wished to do so. He admittedly did not wish to comply nor did he believe that he could successfully contplcte the treatment plan beetiuse of his merltai illness. *li33 In detcnnining whcthcr the co~id~lct cor~ditionof a parent is unlikely to change or within a reasonable time, the court shall enter a finding that continuation of the parent-child legal relationship will likely rcsult in continued abuse or neglect or that the conduct or the condition of a parent rcnders the parent unfit. unable, or un\iilling to givc the child adequate parental care. Section 41-3-hOO(2), MCA; In the hlizlter i!f'l).H., .j 3 1. 745 In making such ctctcrniination, the c o ~ ~ r t consider the elnotional illnesst mcntai shall il!ness. or mental deficiency of the parent and consider whether the duration or nature of the illness or cieficiency will render the parent unlikely to care for the ongoing physical, !:lcntal, and emo:ional ncccts c;f the child within a reasonable tinte. Section 41-3-6!1")2)(a), MCA. in weighing the competing interests of parent ail<$ child, the court must give prii~~ary consideration to the physics!, mental; and emotional conditions and i~ccdsof the child. Section 4 1-3-609(3j. MCA; in !he bf(irrer cif'i),ii. 7332 (citation orniaed). *46 h'c concludi. tl:a: tlie testimony of Dr. Birk. in coiljuncrion with Steven's otvn testimony and conduct, provide substanrial evidence to support the District Court's conclusion that Steven's bipolar disorder and severc i ~ ~ e n tillness, rnaking him unfit to al parent, is a condition tinlikely to change within a reasonable time. The District Court c o ~ ~ e c t concluded tliat t l ~ e ly pliysical, mental, and emottonal condit~ons and needs of the children ~vould best served by the termination of Steven's parental rights. be 6:47 Accordingiy: ~ v e hold tirat tire District C:out-t did not err i n terminating Steven's parental rights. 2. Did the District Court err when it denied Steven visitation with the children '48 after terminating his parental rights? */49 Steven argues that 9 41 -3-445(5), MC'A, probides legal author~ty forthe Lhstrrct Court to allow visitation for a parent whose rights are terminated. Subsection (5) provides in part: In its discretion, the court may enter any other order that it determines to be in the best interests of the child that does not conflict with the options provided in subsection (6) . . . . S O in the matter currently before t h ~ s Court, ~ r . need not anal>ze ulicther tlie grantrng c of visitation to a parcnt whose parental rights have been terminated conflicts with any portion of subsection (6). Subsection (Sf allows a drstrict court discret~on enter any other ordei to that rt deternxnes "to be in the best interests" oftlie cli~ldren. Accordrngly. the Drstr~ct Court ? i'[Stci.cnj caiirror provide stabiliiy. cirntiriuiiyrtnd ihc basic psi211:ing skiil than his children need, it is uni'a~r the children to ccintinue hi:: parental rigl~ts to with s~~pcr\,~iscci \-isitarion, [B~tl, A..4~ c~cscrve nie;iningfid rclat~o~~ship kind 1 a \%:it17 . . a pnrcilr who call pnxide pl?ysical, clnotional and psychn!crgic:il cart grving 1 OO?;, of the time, The best interests ofthe minor children 1B.A. and A.A.]. would he best served by the termination ofthe parent-child legal relationship . . . oC[Stcvcn]. 1 1 '5 The District Court considered Stevcn's visitation request and, i n light ofthe evideiice of Steven's ~ncnta!illness; in its discretion denied Steven's reclucst tbr post-termination visitation, concluding that st~ch visitation would not be in the best interests of the children. We hold that the District C'ourt did not abuse its discrction in so concluding. 'i52 'flte decision o f the District C'ourt is affirmed accordingly
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.
