Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case:
In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931 (Mont. 1984).
In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931 (Mont. 1984).
· cites it 21× “” There are three reasons why this construction of Section 41-3-607 seems too restrictive. First, the “plain language” of the adjudicatory hearing statute, Section 41-3-404, expressly provides that “.”
In re R.A.D., 753 P.2d 862 (Mont. 1988).
· cites it 12× “The father contends that the continuances granted deprived him of due process and the protection of Sections 41-3-401 and 41-3-607, MCA and that the court improperly terminated his parental rights without a dispositional hearing pursuant to Section 41-3-607, MCA. We have…”
In Re A.f.-c., 2001 MT 283 (Mont. 2001).
· cites it 6× “In its order of March 2, 2000, the District Court appointed counsel as required by § 41-3-607(2), MCA, to represent the interests of H.”
In re J.J.G., 880 P.2d 808 (Mont. 1994).
· cites it 8× “Such position is consistent with §§ 41-3-607, MCA, et seq. and 41-3-401, MCA.”
In re T.S.B., 2008 MT 23 (Mont. 2008).
· cites it 2× “¶27 Under § 41-3-607(1), MCA, “[t]he termination of a parent-child legal relationship may be considered only after the filing of a petition pursuant to 41-3-422 alleging the factual grounds for termination pursuant to 41-3-609.”
Smith v. Butte-Silver Bow Cnty., 878 P.2d 870 (Mont. 1994).
· cites it 4× “, MCA; prosecuting or defending actions by or against a school district or community college district under § 20-1-204, MCA; prosecuting injunction actions against persons unlawfully practicing as a dentist under § 37-4-328, MCA; filing abuse, neglect, or dependency…”
In Re M.H. & G.H., 2006 MT 208 (Mont. 2006).
· cites it 4× “It also would require us to conclude that § 41-3-607(5), MCA, which expressly provides “[tjhere is no right to a jury trial at proceedings held to consider the termination of a parent-child legal relationship,” violates the Montana Constitution.”
Matter of A.L.P., YINC, 2020 MT 87 (Mont. 2020).
· cites it 2× “Under § 41-3-607(2), MCA, “[t]he termination of a parent-child legal relationship may be considered only after the filing of a petition pursuant to 41-3-422 alleging the factual grounds for termination pursuant to 41-3-609.”
In re T.S., 801 P.2d 77 (Mont. 1990).
· cites it 2× “This stage of the proceedings also requires the appointment under § 41-3-607(3), MCA, of a guardian ad litem to represent the child’s best interests.”
In re A.N.W., 2006 MT 42 (Mont. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Compare § 41-3-607(4), MCA (2003), (requiring appointed counsel whenever the Department actually petitions to terminate parental rights).”
In re E.A.T., 1999 MT 281 (Mont. 1999).
· cites it 3× “¶37 Section 41-3-607, MCA, provides that: If termination of a parent-child legal relationship is ordered, the court may transfer permanent legal custody of the child, with the right to consent to the child’s adoption, to: (a) the department; (b) a licensed child-placing agency;…”
In re D.S.N., 722 P.2d 614 (Mont. 1986).
· cites it 3× “A petition pursuant to Section 41-3-607, MCA, was thereafter filed seeking to terminate K.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-607(1) — 11 cases
In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931 (Mont. 1984).
“” There are three reasons why this construction of Section 41-3-607 seems too restrictive. First, the “plain language” of the adjudicatory hearing statute, Section 41-3-404, expressly provides that “.”
In re R.A.D., 753 P.2d 862 (Mont. 1988).
“The father contends that the continuances granted deprived him of due process and the protection of Sections 41-3-401 and 41-3-607, MCA and that the court improperly terminated his parental rights without a dispositional hearing pursuant to Section 41-3-607, MCA. We have…”
In re T.S.B., 2008 MT 23 (Mont. 2008).
“¶27 Under § 41-3-607(1), MCA, “[t]he termination of a parent-child legal relationship may be considered only after the filing of a petition pursuant to 41-3-422 alleging the factual grounds for termination pursuant to 41-3-609.”
In re J.J.G., 880 P.2d 808 (Mont. 1994).
“Such position is consistent with §§ 41-3-607, MCA, et seq. and 41-3-401, MCA.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-607(2) — 3 cases
In Re A.f.-c., 2001 MT 283 (Mont. 2001).
“In its order of March 2, 2000, the District Court appointed counsel as required by § 41-3-607(2), MCA, to represent the interests of H.”
Matter of A.L.P., YINC, 2020 MT 87 (Mont. 2020).
“Under § 41-3-607(2), MCA, “[t]he termination of a parent-child legal relationship may be considered only after the filing of a petition pursuant to 41-3-422 alleging the factual grounds for termination pursuant to 41-3-609.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-607(3) — 3 cases
In Re A.f.-c., 2001 MT 283 (Mont. 2001).
“In its order of March 2, 2000, the District Court appointed counsel as required by § 41-3-607(2), MCA, to represent the interests of H.”
In re T.S., 801 P.2d 77 (Mont. 1990).
“This stage of the proceedings also requires the appointment under § 41-3-607(3), MCA, of a guardian ad litem to represent the child’s best interests.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-607(4) — 5 cases
In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931 (Mont. 1984).
“” There are three reasons why this construction of Section 41-3-607 seems too restrictive. First, the “plain language” of the adjudicatory hearing statute, Section 41-3-404, expressly provides that “.”
In re A.N.W., 2006 MT 42 (Mont. 2006).
“Compare § 41-3-607(4), MCA (2003), (requiring appointed counsel whenever the Department actually petitions to terminate parental rights).”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-607(5) — 2 cases
In Re M.H. & G.H., 2006 MT 208 (Mont. 2006).
“It also would require us to conclude that § 41-3-607(5), MCA, which expressly provides “[tjhere is no right to a jury trial at proceedings held to consider the termination of a parent-child legal relationship,” violates the Montana Constitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.