Matter of V.A.L. & J.D.L., YINC ( 2020 )

07/07/2020
DA 19-0636
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2020 MT 177N
IN THE MATTER OF:
V.A.L. and J.D.L.,
Youths in Need of Care.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause Nos. DN 17-70 and DN 17-71
Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Michael P. Sinks, Attorney at Law, Bozeman, Montana
For Appellee:
Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant
Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Kirsten H. Pabst, Missoula County Attorney, Jessica Finley, Deputy County
Attorney, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 1, 2020
Decided: July 7, 2020
Filed:
q3,,---,6mal•-.— 4(
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, 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 J.H.L. (Father) appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order
Terminating the Mother’s and Father’s Parental Rights and Awarding CFS Permanent
Legal Custody with the Right to Consent to Adoption issued by the Fourth Judicial District
Court, Missoula County, on October 7, 2019. The Order terminated Father’s parental rights
to V.A.L. and J.D.L. (Children). We affirm.
¶3 On April 27, 2017, the Child and Family Services Division of the Montana
Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) filed a Petition for
Emergency Protective Services, and Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA). Prior to
this time, the Department had, since November 2016, been steadily working with the
parents to address their unhealthy/unsafe living environment and their lacking/limited
parental skills and knowledge under a Voluntary Protective Services Agreement.
Subsequent to the TIA petition, both parents stipulated to complete a variety of tasks under
TIA to investigate the parents’ capacities to parent and provide for the Children’s
well-being. Despite intensive in-home services, neither parent demonstrated consistent,
sustained improvement such that removal of the Children was required and the Department
2
filed a petition for adjudication and temporary legal custody (TLC) on August 2, 2017. At
that time, both Children exhibited special needs—V.A.L. was not meeting developmental
milestones and not cuing anyone to attend to her needs and there were concerns with
J.D.L.’s communication skills.
¶4 Both parents stipulated to adjudication, TLC, and the tasks and goals of their
proposed treatment plans. Over the next nearly 2 years, the Department worked intensely
with the parents to address their parenting deficiencies. Although the parents completed
or engaged in some treatment plan tasks, they did not exhibit sustained improvement—
with ongoing housing inconsistency, missed visitations, inability to demonstrate skills
taught in parenting courses in interacting with the Children, and inability to address the
Children’s special needs.
¶5 We review a district court decision to terminate parental rights for an abuse of
discretion under the applicable standards of Title 41, chapter 3, MCA. “In this context, a
court abuses its discretion if it terminates parental rights based on clearly erroneous
findings of fact, erroneous conclusions of law, or otherwise acts arbitrarily, without
employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds of reason resulting in
substantial injustice.” In re D.E., 2018 MT 196, ¶ 21, 392 Mont. 297, 423 P.3d 586(internal quotations omitted). Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if not supported by
substantial evidence, the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or this Court has
a definite and firm conviction that the lower court was mistaken. In re D.E., ¶ 21. We
review conclusions of law for correctness. In re D.E., ¶ 21.
3
¶6 Father argues the District Court erred in concluding he would not have rendered
himself fit to parent the Children within a reasonable amount of time. Based on the record,
we are not persuaded by Father’s argument. Although Father completed the SafeCare
parenting class twice, worked with a parenting coach, and also completed the Circle of
Security Parenting Program, he has not shown the ability to use the skills and knowledge
taught in these courses or by the coach in interacting with Children. Further, Father did
not consistently attend individual therapy sessions and did not have regular contact with
his case manager. Due to his failure to maintain appointments with the nutritionist, this
service was cancelled. Likewise, Father was discharged from Child Development Center
(CDC) services for failing to consistently attend. Father was not consistent in attending
visits and at visits had difficulty maintaining attention such that at times he would fall
asleep.
¶7 Although there is no doubt Father loves his Children and desires to be a good parent,
he faces considerable individual challenges in parenting because of his mental health and
cognitive problems. Father has been diagnosed with potential bipolar disorder,
post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and, most primarily,
intellectual disability with a Full Scale IQ of 67 and auditory and memory deficits.
Unfortunately, due to his generalized cerebral dysfunction coupled with auditory and
memory deficits, Father has significantly decreased ability to learn and remember new
information such as that needed to address his parenting deficiencies and meet Children’s
special needs. At the time of the termination hearing, Children had been in an out-of-home
4
placement approximately 27 1/2 months and the parents had been working with the
Department for nearly 3 years.1 Reviewing the record as a whole, we find the District
Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the conduct or condition rendering Father
unfit was not likely to change within a reasonable time and in terminating Father’s parental
rights.
¶8 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
We concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ JIM RICE
1
Pursuant to § 41-3-604, MCA, if a child is in foster care for 15 months of the most recent 22
months, termination of parental rights is presumed to be in the child’s best interest. Here, Father
has failed to overcome this presumption.
5