Montana Court Case: In re M.O.

IN RE THE MATTER OF M.O., M.O. and M.O., Youths in Need of Care. 

No. 02-366 

SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA 

2003 MT 4; 314 Mont. 13; 62 P.3d 265

October 24, 2002, Submitted on Briefs 

January 16, 2003, Decided 

Released for Publication February 3, 2003. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln, The Honorable Michael C. Prezeau, Judge presiding. 

Reversed. 

COUNSEL:
For Appellant: Amy N. Guth, Attorney at Law, Libby, Montana.

For Respondent: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Tammy K. Plubell, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Bernard G. Cassidy, Lincoln County Attorney, Libby, Montana. 

JUDGES:
Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court. We concur W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, JIM REGNIER, JIM RICE. 

OPINIONBY:
Karla M. Gray 

OPINION:

Chief Justice Karla M. Gray delivered the Opinion of the Court.
L.K. appeals from the judgment entered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, on its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order terminating her parental rights to her three children. We reverse.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in terminating L.K.'s parental rights pursuant to § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA.
BACKGROUND
On July 20, 1999, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition in the District Court seeking temporary investigative authority (TIA) over L.K.'s three children based on allegations that the children were--or were in danger of being--abused or neglected as defined in § 41-3-102, MCA. The District Court appointed a guardian ad litem for the children and scheduled a show cause hearing on August 18, 1999, on the petition. L.K. appeared at the show cause hearing, but was not represented by counsel. On being questioned by the court, L.K. responded that she understood what the Department was requesting via the petition for TIA and initially stated that she did not oppose the Department's request. Later during the hearing, however, and at the suggestion of the children's guardian ad litem, L.K. informed the District Court that she disagreed with some of the factual allegations in the petition and reserved her right to object to those allegations in the future. In response, the court stated:

Rate this article     Low		High