In re S.W., DA 14–0288.

• Decision Date: 17 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. DA 14–0288.,DA 14–0288.
• Citation: 348 P.3d 671 (Table),378 Mont. 539
• Parties: In the Matter of S.W., a Youth in Need of Care.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

378 Mont. 539

348 P.3d 671 (Table)

In the Matter of S.W., a Youth in Need of Care.

No. DA 14–0288.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Jan. 21, 2015.

Decided Feb. 17, 2015.

For Appellant: Julie Brown, Montana Legal Justice, PLLC, Missoula, Montana.

For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Micheal S. Wellenstein, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, John Parker, Cascade County Attorney, Jennifer Quick, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana.

Opinion

Justice LAURIE McKINNON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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 N.W. (Mother) appeals from the order of the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, terminating her parental rights to her child S.W. We affirm.

¶ 3 The issue presented for review is whether the District Court erred when it found that the conduct or condition rendering Mother unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time.

¶ 4 S.W., born in 2013, is Mother's second child. Mother's first child was removed by the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) in 2011. Mother's rights to that child were terminated in 2013, after Mother failed to complete her treatment plan. In re K.L., 2014 MT 28, 373 Mont. 421, 318 P.3d 691. S.W. was born while the termination petition regarding Mother's first child was pending and was removed two days after birth.

¶ 5 A few weeks prior to S.W.'s birth, J.B., the man Mother believed to be S.W.'s father, was arrested for assaulting a security guard in Mother's apartment building. A few days after this incident, Mother informed a social worker with the Department that J .B. had recently assaulted her. Mother appeared with bruising and swelling around both eyes. The Department had ongoing concerns about Mother's ability to protect her children from exposure to violent individuals, based in part on similar circumstances surrounding the removal of K.L. two years earlier. The Department was also concerned about Mother's ability to maintain basic hygiene and provide for S.W.'s basic needs. Mother needed frequent reminders to bathe and wash her clothes. Mother had not obtained adequate supplies, such as diapers and clothing, for the care of the newborn. Mother has significant cognitive limitations and an I.Q. of 69. She has no source of income other than public assistance.

¶ 6 On August 22, 2013, Mother and the Department entered a treatment plan requiring the following tasks: complete a parenting assessment; complete parenting training; complete an in-home parenting program; address mental health issues; maintain a safe and stable home environment; have enough income to meet S.W.'s needs; attend every scheduled visit with S.W.; maintain consistent, appropriate contact with S.W.; sign all necessary releases; and contact the Department on a weekly basis.

¶ 7 On February 19, 2014, the Department petitioned to terminate Mother's parental rights, claiming she had failed to successfully complete her treatment plan. A termination hearing was held on April 10, 2014. At the termination hearing, psychologist Susan Day testified that Mother exhibited unrealistic thinking and poor judgment about complex situations. Day also testified that Mother's hygiene was quite poor, and that Mother was unable to identify areas she needed to work on as a parent. Day described Mother's problems as “chronic” and “intractable.” Mother's therapist, Sarah Karls, testified that “employment did not seem to be on [Mother's] radar,” and that Mother intended to remain in a long-term, family relationship with J.B. Julie Trosper supervised Mother's visits with S.W., and testified that “it was a struggle” for Mother to learn to care for S.W. “without always having to be told what to do.” Trosper said Mother had “really kind of unrealistic expectations, like he was a little adult rather than an infant.”

¶ 8 Child Protective Specialist Isaac Jessee testified that Mother received in-home parenting services, but was never able to progress to the family-based services stage that would have preceded reunification. Jessee testified that although Mother was able to maintain a residence, the Department was concerned about her ability to provide a safe home environment because she appeared unable to recognize threats to S.W.'s safety from violent individuals. Jessee testified that although Mother received public assistance and performed some volunteer work, she had taken no steps to obtain employment and was unable to articulate how she would provide for the child's needs. Jessee testified that although Mother's attendance at parenting education, counseling, and...