MATTER OF M A D C D

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 02-308 Tf{E S";PRE".;IE COURT OF: I~tiE m T E OF hlOx~rAA%Jr\ S 2003 M'f 10 !Y 1 LIE XIATTER OF THE C['STODY AED PAREIVTAL. RIGHTS OF M.A.D. and C.D., Youths In Need Of Care APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Honorable Dorothy McCarter, Judge Presiding COGNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Peter Bov~ngdon.Assistant Public Defender, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Honorable R4ske hlcGrath, r\ttorney General. Jlm Il'heehs, Asb~siant Attorney General. Heicna, Vontana Leo Gallagher, County .kttorneq; Carolyn A Clemens, Deputy County Attorney, Helena. Montana Randl M Hood, Chief Public Defender, Helena, Montana (For Youths) Subnnttcd on Br~efs Ociobcr 17, 2002 Decided. January 23,2003 Filed: Jastice \V. Williain idcaphart delivered the iipinion o f t i i c C:our~. .Appeiiani. LP.i?., natural moihii- of 2;i.A.l). and C.D.. appca!s ilic District Court's 4; 1 Orders of J:rntiary 20, 20112,and Fehrnary 15: 2002, terminating her parenra? rights. We afirrn. 72 The sole issue raised on appeal is whether tlie District Court abused its discretion in terminating D.D.'s parental rights. Background *3 In March 2000. D.D. was cited for endangeri~ig welfare of her children. Police, the in search of a juvenile offender with a serious criminal record, entered D.D.'s home kvhcre they found one child chew 111gor: a clgarcttc and the other c h ~ l d eatlng n~~tshells the floor. off Thc ch~ldren were three and h e )ears old at the tlmc. D.D u a s not at home, anti the adults i n the residence tvere sleeping. 1j.D. had previo~~sly cited for child eizdangerment in heel1 Ohio for leaving M.A.D. and C.D. alone when they were one and three pears old. $4 The police referred the incident to the Montana Dcpartnlcnt of Health and Human Services (the Department), which begam an investigation. Social lvorkers from the Ilepartmc~itlearned that the olclest child, 'L1.A.D.; had bccn sexually n~olested a male by whom D.D. had let stay in the home. .4nother man staying with D.D. had kicked M.A.D. across the living room floor. *5 In April 2000, the tlepal-tment entered into a trcatme~it plan with D.D. ?'he plan reyu~rcd j 11..rfshc had to leabe the ehildlcn, to place them with he1 stepmother and father L The plan also required D.11. to screen visitors to hcr home, kcgin corrnseiing, cornplcte a chcmicid iiepcncicncy evaluation, attend parenting classes. find ernpioyrni:ni, and p r o m efr sevcral other rasks. 76 Shortly after entering into the first treatment pian, D.D, requested that thc children be placed in foster case because she believed both she and her cl~ildrenwere in danger. Illtimately, after a series of unsuecessfiii treatment plans, the Department filed a petition ibr tire termination of D.D.'s parental rights. Shortly thereafter, i1.D. moved to LL'yoming to "start a new life,'' and in July 2001. she relinquished 11er parental rights; however, she later retracted the relinquishment. "'II 7 A hearing on the termi~ratioll D.D.'s parcntal rights was heid in Noi~cn~ber of 2001. Dean Ckegg, a clisiical psychologist who had interviewed D.D., testi6ed that D.D. had a below-average I.Q. of 84, and that she probably had a learning disorder which lecl her to choose associates unwisely atid limited her ability to end relationships kvhert necessary. Gregg further testified that D.D. was not familiar m-ith children's normal tlcvelopsncntal stages and that her treatment would be lengthy, from two to four years, given that she was neither insightful nor motivated. "8 ti M.A.D.'sprimaryther:~pist at intermountain i::hiidr-en'sIIome: :Ilal-garelAnn S t i n ~ a t ~ ; also testified. At the time of the hearing, M.A.D. had been at Intermountain for approximately three months. Stimatz believed that M.A.D. Irad been sexiially abused and that he had a history ofphysical abuse. She testified that b4..4.D. resisted nurture rind care, did not trust adults, was aggressive with both aciults and children, and had acted our sexually with both his yourlgcr brother and another boy in his foster "Ro:ne. Slle a!so testified that ti,.A,B.'s I~istory showed that he was left unattended at rimes and that 13.D.'~ acquaintances haci been violent to\vard him. She testified that his bchaiior was typical o f children who had been sexually abused. Stimatz believed that, in order for D.D. hake a role in his life, she would to have to be willing to work with his therapists; however. in the three months that M.A.D. had been at intermountain, D.D. hadonly contacted Intermonntain once. Stimatznoted that D.D. itadnot requested to see her children when she %as in Helena for the ternhation hearing and that she had visited with her children only once in thc five months prior to the hearing. ql9 I \ social worker for the Department, who had worked extensively with D.D. testified that D.D. had faiied to complete any of lter treatnieut plans. %,%i!e over the course of 18 montl~s D.D. had obtained some evaluations, she had eo~npletcd neither the therapy nor a psychosexual evaluation as outlined in the plans. The social worker also testified that she believed that D.D. still did not understand how to protect the children. 710 D.D. testified on her own behalf at the lieari~ig. She explained that she was Inore stablc since n~o\-ing Wyoming, that she had a steady job, that she livcd with a man who to worked reg~ilarl:;; and that she could get proper daycare for both her cliildrcn, '11 1 ,After reviewing the testimony, the District C:ourt ordered the termination of t).Il.'s parental rights 011 January 29,2002. An amended order ofterrtiination followed a f e ~ wccks latcr. ln both, the District Court h u n d that "[tjhc problen~s which existed in March 2000. which lcd to the dccision oiDPfiJHS to ask for custody ofthe youths still csist at this litnc," and (hat '"ji;.(>.] is not likely i o co~l-tpletc [irea-irncnij plans within a rt.asi;nab!c time. hcr -9 D.D. filed this timely appeal. Standard of Review ri12 We rckiew a irial court's decision to terminate parental rights for abuse of discretion. See I re C X , 2001 MT 187,l 9. 306 Pvlont. 238, rj 0 . 32 P.3d 754,T ")citing n I999 MT 277; 7 10: 200 Mont. 510, 7 16, 989 P.2d 840, In rP.J.i\4.J., 16). The test for an abuse of discretion is "whcthcr the trial court acted arbitrarily, without employinent of conscientious judgment, or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice." It! re C.'.I1.> 9. 'Phe standard of review of a trial caul-t's findings of fact in a parental termination case is whether the findings in question are clearly erroneous. See CLIiztter of/'.E. (19977), 282 Mont. 52, 56,9334 P.2d 206,200; 12,lnttcrof,J. I,., I1.L. ijri~IA.C;. (1996), 277 MOII~. 283,287, 922 P.2d 450,461. The standard of review o f a trial court's conclusions of law in such eases is whether its conclusions are correct. See \/lutti?r of'l'.E., 282 Mont. at 56-57, 934 P.2d at 200; jZluftcr ofJ.L., 277 Mont. at 287, 922 P.2d at 461. 11 3 ' Seetton41-3-600, MCA, n h l c l ~ applics to the tet-rnniation ofparental rtghts, pro\ldes in pertinent part as follows: 'i'he co~trt may order a termination of the parent-child legal relationship upon a finding that . . . the follotving circumstances exist: . . . (i) the child is an adjudicated youth in need of care and both of the following exist: . . . (ii) the conduct or-condition of tire parcnts rcndcring the111 i i n l j t is unlikciy to change within a reasonable timc. i).D.argues illat the District Coun abused i i s discretion in fiilding that "[tjlic problems ,which existed in March 2000 . . . still exist at this time," and that -'she is nor likely to complcte her [treatment]plans within a reasonable time." These findings imply that subsection (f)(,ii)of $41-3-6!!9, MCi\, that the "conduct or co~idition" rendering her r~niit unlikely to change was in a reasonable time, was satisficd. D.D. argues that the District Court erred because thc "conduct or condition" rendering her unfit in March 2000. her lack of stability, no longer exists as she now leads a "stable" and child-centered" life in LVyorning. 714 !-(owever,D.D.'s argument ignores the contrary tesiirilony oEa clinical psychologist, a therapist, and a social worker. Their testimony illeluded the obscrcation that I3.D. had not completed any of her treatment plans and that she had essentially refused to obtain rt~ental health and alcohol counseling. Certainly, the fact that D.D. haci not completed a treatment plan within a year and a half indicates that D.D. is unlikely to complete one within a reasonable time and, consequently, the condt~ct rendering her unfit is sintilarly unlikely to change ivithin a reasonable tirnc. We hold that the District Court based its findings on substantial credible eikkmce. 'Therefore; we affirm the District (-ourt's termiilation ofD.D.'s parental rights. Justice / V i e concur:

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.