Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DN-16-118 Honorable John W. Larson, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Tracy Labin Rhodes, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Tammy K Plubell, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Karen Kane, Assistant Attorney General, Child Protection Unit, Missoula, Montana Filed: /s/_________
Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 T.M. (Mother) appeals from an order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, terminating her parental rights to her natural child X.M. We affirm. ¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1.
Whether Mother was denied due process in the proceedings to terminate her parental rights.
2.
Whether the District Court abused its discretion in terminating Mother's rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶3 Mother recently aged out of foster care. Her childhood was fraught with physical and sexual abuse. She was removed from her parents at an early age and spent her adolescence in foster care, hospitals, and group homes. Due to the negative experiences in her past, Mother is paranoid and distrustful of group homes and the Department of Health and Human Services (Department). Mother also has low cognitive ability. ¶4 X.M. was born in March 2016 in Helena, Montana. Two days before X.M.'s birth, Mother checked out of the women's residential group home where she was residing. The home notified the Department because Mother was young and had a history of mental illness and low cognitive ability. ¶5 After X.M.'s birth, the Department helped Mother develop a voluntary services agreement enabling her to stay at the home of a family friend. Shortly thereafter, Mother expressed concern for X.M.'s safety due to domestic violence in the home. On April 1, 2016, the Department removed X.M. from Mother's care after X.M. was hospitalized and terminating Mother's parental rights, from which Mother appeals. The District Court never doubted Mother's love for X.M. However, it could not overlook Mother's inability to parent independently, her unsafe and unstable housing situation, and her unaddressed mental health and psychiatric conditions in considering what was best for X.M. The District Court ultimately found that Mother failed to complete her treatment plan and that "continuation of the parent-child legal relationship between [Mother] and [X.M. would] likely result in [X.M.]'s continued abuse and/or neglect and [that it was] in [X.M.]'s best interests to terminate [Mother]'s parental rights."
The parental rights of X.M.'s father, R.C., were previously terminated. --------
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶17 This Court reviews a district court's decision to terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion. In re A.S., 2016 MT 156, ¶ 11, 384 Mont. 41, 373 P.3d 848. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice. In re K.A., 2016 MT 27, ¶ 19, 382 Mont. 165, 365 P.3d 478. This Court reviews a district court's findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law for correctness. In re M.V.R., 2016 MT 309, ¶ 23, 385 Mont. 448, 384 P.3d 1058. Whether Mother was denied due process is a question of constitutional law, over which this Court exercises plenary review. In re M.V.R., ¶ 24.
DISCUSSION
¶18 "A parent's right to the care and custody of a child is a fundamental liberty interest which must be protected by fundamentally fair procedures." In re D.B., 2007 MT 246, ¶ 17, 339 Mont. 240, 168 P.3d 691.Section 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA, provides the conditions rendering Mother unfit to parent X.M. were unlikely to change within a reasonable time.
CONCLUSION
¶30 The District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother's parental rights. Clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that Mother's treatment plan adequately addressed her specific needs and that Mother did not complete the treatment plan. Moreover, Mother's condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The District Court properly followed the statutory criteria and thus did not violate Mother's due process rights in terminating her parental rights. ¶31 Affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH We Concur: /S/ JIM RICE
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR