Background
The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services intervened in September 2023 after Father tested positive for methamphetamine at the birth of his then-girlfriend’s child. At that time, only H.T. and S.T. were living with Father; D.L. was established during the proceeding to be his biological child. An initial safety plan placed the children with their paternal grandmother and limited Father to supervised contact, but the Department moved them to a non-kinship placement after Father arrived intoxicated and took the girls to a park without supervision.
Over the next two years, the Department referred Father to substance-use treatment, mental-health services, parenting classes, and treatment court. Father moved between Montana and Missouri, participated inconsistently in services and visits, and relapsed multiple times. The Department paused visits in July 2024 after the children’s therapists determined that continued visits were not beneficial to their mental health. Although Father later obtained employment and housing and pursued treatment in Kalispell, he stopped attending one program, tested positive for alcohol and THC, and used alcohol shortly before the November 2025 termination hearing.
The District Court terminated Father’s parental rights after finding that he had not successfully completed his treatment plan, that the conditions rendering him unable to provide adequate care were unlikely to change within a reasonable time, and that termination served the children’s best interests. Father appealed, challenging the Department’s reunification efforts, the reliance on therapists’ visitation recommendations, the likelihood-of-change finding, and the effectiveness of his counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It held that substantial evidence supported the finding that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts. The Department repeatedly made referrals, followed Father’s progress across six chemical-dependency providers, facilitated visits, communicated with service providers, and attempted to address barriers. Given Father’s move out of state, inconsistent contact, failure to complete treatment, and the children’s demonstrated trauma and reactions to visits, pausing visitation based on their therapists’ recommendations did not amount to an improper delegation of authority.
The Court also upheld the finding that Father’s conduct or condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. His recent progress in Kalispell did not outweigh his history over the case’s nearly 25 months, including repeated relapses, inconsistent treatment, unstable housing, and failure to address the conditions identified in his treatment plan. The children’s need for stability and permanency took precedence over allowing Father additional time.
Finally, the Court rejected Father’s ineffective-assistance claim for lack of prejudice. Even assuming counsel performed deficiently by not calling a treatment-court coordinator and other Kalispell witnesses, Father did not show a reasonably likely different outcome. The Court denied his motion to supplement the record and deemed the State’s motion to strike moot.
Key Takeaways
- Reasonable reunification efforts are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances and do not require the Department to pursue services endlessly when a parent does not consistently engage.
- Late progress does not establish successful completion of a treatment plan when the parent has not shown sustained sobriety or resolved the conditions preventing safe parenting within the children’s timeframe.
- An ineffective-assistance claim in a parental-rights case requires prejudice—a showing that counsel’s alleged deficiency made a different result reasonably likely.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Montana courts assess both agency efforts and parental progress across the entire dependency proceeding. A parent’s meaningful improvement shortly before a termination hearing may be insufficient when it follows prolonged noncompliance and does not demonstrate sustained change.
The memorandum opinion is noncitable and does not serve as precedent, but it illustrates how the Montana Supreme Court weighs children’s trauma, stability, and need for permanency against a parent’s request for additional reunification time.