Background
The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services removed S.O. and T.O. after infant T.O. suffered multiple subdural hematomas, retinal hemorrhaging, and other injuries that medical personnel deemed non-accidental and inconsistent with the parents’ account. Father, who was caring for T.O. when the injuries occurred, was suspected of causing them. Mother, K.T., initially denied the abuse, continued allowing Father access to the children despite a protection plan, and later remained in contact with him after he was convicted of assaulting a minor and imprisoned.
Over approximately 20 months, the Department provided K.T. with treatment plans and assistance involving housing, counseling, supervised visitation, domestic-violence services, transportation, and parenting support. K.T. completed some tasks but repeatedly missed appointments and visits, declined offered services, struggled to communicate with her caseworker, and made little demonstrated progress in parenting or protective capacity. After moving to California, she obtained a driver’s license, employment, housing with her mother, and some therapy and domestic-violence services, but the move ended in-person visitation and adversely affected the children. The District Court terminated her parental rights and granted the Department permanent custody with authority to consent to adoption.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Department made reasonable reunification efforts and that K.T. failed to complete or successfully comply with her court-approved treatment plan. The Department was not required to make “herculean efforts,” and K.T. had an obligation to use the services offered. Her partial progress did not satisfy Montana’s requirement of complete and successful treatment-plan compliance.
The Court also held that substantial evidence supported the finding that K.T.’s condition was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. It did not treat her inability to complete post-reunification therapy or her decision to move to California as grounds for termination. Instead, it focused primarily on her continuing relationship with Father, failure to protect the children from him, limited improvement in parenting skills, lack of independence, and repeated prioritization of adult relationships over the children’s safety. The children’s need for permanence and their strong bond with the paternal grandparents further supported termination.
Key Takeaways
- Partial or substantial compliance with a Montana child-welfare treatment plan is insufficient when the parent has not successfully completed the plan’s essential requirements.
- Reasonable reunification efforts do not require the Department to overcome a parent’s repeated refusal of services, missed appointments, or failure to communicate.
- A court may consider how an out-of-state move affects visitation and reunification, even though it may not terminate parental rights merely because the parent exercised the constitutional right to travel.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that late progress on housing, employment, and counseling may not prevent termination when core safety concerns remain unresolved. Courts may assess a parent’s past and present conduct—including continued ties to an abusive partner—to determine whether sufficient change is likely within a timeframe consistent with the children’s need for stability.
The opinion is a noncitable memorandum decision under the Montana Supreme Court’s Internal Operating Rules and does not serve as precedent.