IN RE: S.O. and T.O. Youths in Need of Care. (2026)

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), 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 K.T., Mother of S.O. and T.O., appeals the Final Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Orders Terminating Parental Rights for S.O. and T.O., entered in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Stillwater County, on December 30, 2025, following a termination hearing conducted on September 25, 2025, and October 3, 2025. We affirm.

¶3 This appeal arises from the hospitalization of minor child T.O. on December 6, 2023. At that time, the parents reported S.O. had jumped off the couch and stepped on T.O.’s bouncy chair, which made it flip over. S.O. got tangled in it and kicked T.O. The parents reported that T.O.’s eyes rolled back in his head, and they gave breaths to resuscitate him. Several days later, on December 11, 2023, T.O. was again taken to the Stillwater Clinic where K.T. reported that T.O. had woken from a nap with blood in his mouth. When they arrived at the emergency room, T.O. had a seizure. T.O. was life-flighted to Colorado Children's Hospital and was diagnosed with multiple subdural hematomas, retinal hemorrhaging, a cut frenulum under his lip, as well as bruising to his face and bottom. The medical personnel concluded that the injuries did not match the story provided by the parents and the injuries were deemed non-accidental. At the time T.O. was injured, he was under the care of the Father and Father was therefore suspected of being the offending parent. The Department of Public Health and Human Services (the Department) implemented a protection plan which prevented Father from having unsupervised contact with the children during the investigation into T.O.’s injuries. Both parents agreed to the voluntary protection plan; however, when Child Protective Services (CPS) and hospital staff tried to communicate with K.T. about the extent of injuries and the suspicion that Father was the cause, K.T. did not understand or refused to believe that Father may have caused T.O.’s injuries.

¶4 The Department then updated the protection plan to remove Father from the home. K.T.’s mother, the children's maternal grandmother, then arrived from California to assist K.T. On January 4, 2024, CPS discovered the parents had violated the terms of the protection plan on multiple occasions. CPS learned Father had screamed at, threatened to hit, and placed a gun on the kitchen table to intimidate the children's maternal grandmother. Maternal grandmother reported the incident to CPS and told them about Father's continued presence in the home. Maternal grandmother flew back to California out of fear for her safety. CPS then removed the children from the home and placed the children with their paternal grandparents.

¶5 Upon removal, CPS again attempted to explain to K.T. the suspected cause of T.O.’s injuries and the serious danger Father posed to the children. K.T. denied the abuse and told CPS “we don't abuse our kids.” CPS was concerned about K.T.’s lack of protective capacity because she did not follow the protection plan and allowed Father to be with the children. CPS suggested that K.T. obtain the services of Domestic Violence and Sexual Victims Services (DSVS). However, K.T. denied that she was in a violent relationship and continued to live with Father for some time.

¶6 On January 8, 2024, the Department filed for emergency protective services which the court granted on January 10, 2024. A show cause hearing was set for January 25, 2024, wherein the parents stipulated that the Department had shown cause to continue emergency protective services until the adjudication hearing.

¶7 K.T. immediately began working on treatment and scheduled herself and Father for parenting classes at Lighthouse in Laurel, Montana. K.T. was also referred by CPS for a domestic violence assessment and individual therapy, and to begin mental health counseling with therapist Krista Petterson (Petterson). The parents also began visitations with the children at the paternal grandparents’ house.

¶8 On February 9, 2024, the parents stipulated to an adjudication proceeding wherein the children were recognized as youths in need of care. The Department was granted temporary legal custody of the children for 6 months. K.T. was given a court-ordered treatment plan on March 15, 2024, which, among other things, required K.T. to successfully complete parenting classes, maintain her visitation time with the children, obtain a legal source of income, complete a domestic violence risk assessment, and to meet with her caseworker.

¶9 The parents’ progress was slow, and they struggled to comply with the treatment plan. Paternal grandmother reported to CPS that parents had cancelled five visits with the children. Additionally, the Department was forced to take over scheduling and managing the children's doctor's appointments due to K.T.’s lack of communication and cancellations of the children's appointments.

¶10 In April 2024, CPS reached out to Petterson for an update on the parent's counseling. Petterson reported that the parents did not seem to be taking the situation seriously. Petterson reported seeing K.T. and Father ride past a scheduled appointment on a motorcycle, waving to her as they rode by. The parents had missed a total of six appointments and after a final “no-call no-show,” Petterson discharged K.T. and Father as clients.

¶11 In August 2024, the Department petitioned for an extension of temporary legal custody for another six months to allow parents time to complete treatment plans. There were continued concerns with K.T.’s lack of communication, cancelling and failing to attend visits with the children or appointments for therapy, and a domestic dispute between Father and K.T. that resulted in law enforcement arriving at the home. The parents stipulated to the extension of temporary legal custody and the court granted the extension on September 6, 2024.

¶12 Following the August extension, the Department and K.T. agreed to a Phase II treatment plan requiring K.T. to complete a parenting fit assessment and to follow the recommendations of that assessment. The Phase II treatment plan also ordered K.T. to continue mental health counseling; maintain communication with the Department and notify it of any changes or barriers to completion of treatment tasks; maintain employment; obtain safe and stable housing; obtain a driver's license; and address an outstanding warrant out of Laurel, Montana.

¶13 K.T. was referred by CPS to Dr. Malcolm Horn to complete the parent fitness assessment. Dr. Horn's report indicated that K.T. was minimizing her faults and problems to look good by not answering honestly to the assessment questions. Dr. Horn thought it important that parents need to be aware of their shortcomings and take feedback and advice, but that K.T. lacked such an awareness. Dr. Horn reported that K.T. has a turbulent and histrionic personality style and always needs to be in a relationship which shows that she prioritizes those relationships over her relationship with the children. Dr. Horn was further concerned with K.T.’s delay in scheduling tasks that she needed to complete to get the children back, indicating that she did not prioritize reunification. Dr. Horn recommended K.T. continue therapy and engage in Parent Child Interaction Therapy. Dr. Horn also recommended that K.T. engage in services for domestic violence, demonstrate financial solvency, and obtain safe and consistent housing to show she can provide for the therapeutic and educational needs of the children.

¶14 In January 2025, K.T. finally admitted to CPS that Father was violent towards her and explained that she was no longer in a relationship with Father. CPS helped K.T. file for a protective order. Due to K.T.’s breakup with Father, K.T. was evicted from the home. CPS and DSVS found apartments in Columbus and Billings so K.T. could stay locally near the children's placement; however, K.T. was not willing to live in or near Billings and rejected both options.

¶15 Instead, K.T. told CPS that she had found an apartment to live with her new boyfriend in Bridger, Montana. CPS advised against that decision because there were no services in Bridger for K.T. to meet her requirements. K.T. still had no driver's license, no car, and became completely dependent on her new boyfriend or a friend to take her anywhere. K.T. ended the relationship with her boyfriend because he had lied about his criminal history. K.T. then ended up back in a relationship with Father.

¶16 Although K.T. had already complained about transportation issues, her move to Bridger made it more difficult for her to fulfill her treatment plan requirements. K.T. had declined transportation assistance for visitations with the children and K.T. did not appear for a Department of Motor Vehicle appointment set up by CPS to obtain her license. Additionally, when CPS attempted to set K.T. up with a domestic violence support group in Billings, K.T. refused. She wanted to attend the domestic violence support group in Laurel, which had no availability.

¶17 In February 2025, the Department sought another extension of temporary legal custody to allow parents additional time to complete their treatment plan. Parents stipulated to the extension, which was granted by the court.

¶18 At the June 13, 2025 status hearing, it was reported that Father had been sentenced to 15 years in prison with 10 suspended for assault on a minor from the incident that led to the children's removal. K.T. was then informed of the Department's intent to file for termination of her parental rights for her failure to complete the conditions of the treatment plan.

¶19 Shortly thereafter, K.T. moved to California on July 26, 2025. In California, K.T. received her driver's license, began working at a laundry mat for 8 hours a week, attended domestic violence classes every Thursday for an hour, attended other therapy requirements, and was living at the children's maternal grandmother's house. However, K.T. was no longer able to complete in-person visitations with the children. K.T. did not explain to the children that she was moving away prior to the move. Wendy Bulkley (Bulkley), the children's visitation supervisor, was then forced to explain to the children that K.T. was going to appear via phone call rather than in person. During the first two video calls, S.O. screamed for the entire 30-minute call because she was upset that K.T. was not there in person. S.O.’s counselor then determined that S.O. should be left out of future video calls. Similarly, T.O. was disinterested in the phone calls and would walk away and lay on the floor facing the wall, not looking at the camera.

¶20 The court held a termination hearing on September 25, 2025, and October 3, 2025. Father had voluntarily relinquished his parental rights to the children and K.T. contested termination. Several witnesses testified to K.T.’s conduct and lack of progress towards completing the treatment plan. K.T.’s caseworker, Tiana Timm, testified that when she took over the case, she consistently had communication problems with K.T. K.T. would not respond to calls or text messages, or would open the text messages, read them, but not respond. Timm testified that K.T. did not meet her requirement to attend all required meetings to discuss the treatment plan's progress. Timm was “forced to chase down K.T. multiple times because communication had been a constant struggle.” K.T. admitted to the lack of communication with Timm on a regular basis because she “forgets to respond.”

¶21 While K.T. had worked on some of her tasks, Timm testified that K.T. was only “somewhat” compliant with most of the requirements, primarily because K.T. consistently missed appointments and visitations. While K.T. complained that this was due to transportation, Timm explained that Bulkley had offered to pick K.T. up in Laurel and take K.T. to Columbus to do visitations, but K.T. would decline. Timm explained that K.T.’s choice to move to Bridger rather than Billings only made transportation more difficult. Timm told K.T. that she could get her into the Montana Rescue Mission homeless shelter in Billings temporarily to gain employment, but K.T. refused.

¶22 K.T. had also only partially completed her Phase II tasks which added the parenting fitness assessment and its subsequent recommendations. As for the parenting fit assessment, while K.T. completed paperwork and attended the interviews, K.T. provided dishonest answers to paint herself in a good light. K.T. was required to complete Parent Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), a post reunification task which K.T. could not begin until K.T. was reunified with the children. K.T. was also required to attend therapeutic and domestic violence services. Timm testified that K.T. chose not to comply with this recommendation prior to moving to California. Timm testified that K.T. never met the safe and appropriate housing requirement because K.T. had been evicted from the trailer she was sharing with Father. K.T. then moved in with a new boyfriend in Absarokee and later got an apartment in Bridger only with DSVS's assistance. However, K.T was then unable to effectively work on the treatment plan from that location and eventually moved to California. The Department did not investigate whether K.T.’s housing situation in California satisfied the safe and stable home requirement.

¶23 Timm testified that she worked with K.T. to get set up with services in California. Timm reported that she was able to confirm that K.T. had been attending a therapist in California, yet due to the inadequate medical information release, Timm could not determine whether a mental health evaluation had been completed. Timm stated that as of the termination hearing the mental health evaluation requirement was incomplete. Timm further testified that because K.T. only just began attending domestic violence support groups, K.T. was far from completing this task for treatment.

¶24 Timm also had additional concerns over K.T.’s financial situation and relationship with Father. Timm reported that K.T. and Father would talk on the phone for up to 30 minutes at a time. Timm reported that she had listened to phone calls between the parents about their plans to move to Florida with the children when he was released from prison. There were 397 phone calls between K.T. and Father, for which K.T. paid over $400. Timm relayed concerns about K.T. spending money on Father when she could have spent it on the children or housing to stay in Montana.

¶25 Overall, Timm testified that K.T. had not been without support at any time since K.T. was ordered to complete the requirements by the court in March 2024. Timm testified that K.T. constantly relies on other people and lacks the independence necessary to care for the children on her own. Timm explained that K.T. was not successful in completing the treatment plan and determined that K.T. would likely need at least a few more years to successfully complete the treatment plan. Timm also reported that she believes she did everything possible to help K.T., but that K.T. had shown she constantly puts her needs over that of the children and the needs of Father over the children's. She stated that K.T.’s continued relationship with Father shows a lack of awareness and protective capacity to keep the children and herself safe.

¶26 Bulkley similarly testified to K.T.’s lack of success because she saw “little improvement” over the 6 months she supervised visits with K.T. and it was “always a struggle.” Bulkley testified K.T. did not actively use the parenting class suggestions and the parenting class was not successful in helping K.T. parent the children. Bulkley also explained that K.T.’s decision to move to California without telling the children first was detrimental to the parent-child relationship. Bulkley stated that it is very important for parents to be in the same room when trying to unify with the children and when the parent is not in the room the children feel abandoned. Bulkley explained the children have struggled with abandonment and now must be reassured by the paternal grandparents or daycare workers that they will return. Bulkley further testified that she does not believe K.T. should be reunited with the children because K.T. has not created a safe home and because K.T. left the state without explaining the decision to the children. She believes that these two concerns make K.T. unfit for parenting at the time of the hearing because K.T. does not think about how her decisions will affect the children.

¶27 Heather Wilson, K.T.’s third therapist, testified she does not support K.T.’s continued relationship with Father and she believes it would be unsafe for K.T. or the children to be around Father. Wilson explained that K.T. has made progress toward therapeutic goals but gets pulled back into a domestic violence relationship which then requires more help and support. Wilson was concerned that because K.T. was easily manipulated by Father she might let him see the children. While Wilson was originally skeptical of K.T.’s move to California, she agreed that K.T. was doing better and could better complete the treatment plan tasks in California. However, Wilson also recommended that K.T. continue counseling to work on K.T.’s domestic violence post-traumatic stress disorder and co-dependency issues. Wilson had additional concerns regarding K.T.’s ability to parent based on K.T.’s immaturity and inability to recognize the consequences of her actions or take ownership of her faults.

¶28 Dr. Horn strongly disagreed with K.T.’s decision to move to California. Dr. Horn explained that K.T.’s behavior was inconsistent with the “behavior of a parent who desires to parent the children, be near them, care for them.” Dr. Horn was concerned with K.T. and Father continuing their relationship given T.O. was harmed by Father. Dr. Horn also stated that after 20 months of living with the paternal grandparents, moving the children would be more detrimental to them and that even if reunification was possible it would have to be “incredibly gradual.”

¶29 Similarly, other witnesses testified to the best interests of the children. Timm testified she has never had a concern about the placement of the children with the paternal grandparents. She explained that all the children's needs are met and they are heavily bonded to their paternal grandparents. The children have lived most of their lives with their paternal grandparents and it would be very difficult for them to be removed from their care. Additionally, the children's attorney and guardian ad litem each determined that the children's best interests would be best served by termination of K.T.’s parental rights.

¶30 K.T. testified on her own behalf, explaining that since moving to California she was no longer with Father and she had been working on the treatment plan tasks. She stated she had completed the parenting class, had been attending therapy and domestic violence classes, and had a job and safe home. K.T believed she would not have been able to complete the treatment plan if she had stayed in Montana. K.T. also testified she did not believe she needed counseling anymore but wanted to continue therapy because she believed it provided help and support. The children's maternal grandmother and K.T.’s cousin also testified to K.T.’s parenting, explaining that K.T. was doing everything she could to get the children back and that her parental rights should not be terminated.

¶31 The District Court terminated K.T.’s parental rights based on her failure to complete the treatment plan tasks and concluded it was unlikely that K.T. would successfully complete the tasks in a reasonable amount of time. The court further held the Department had established by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the children would be served by termination of the parent-child relationship and thus awarded permanent legal custody to the Department with authority to consent to adoption.

¶32 On appeal, K.T. argues that the District Court erred when it terminated her parental rights because K.T. was addressing all concerns and completing all the tasks of her treatment plan. K.T. states the Department prematurely moved for termination, faulting her for moving from Montana to California to seek a safe and stable life so she could provide for her kids, and for continuing to speak with Father. She also argues that the Department did not provide her with sufficient reunification services to help her with completion of the treatment plan.

¶33 A district court's decision to terminate parental rights is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re J.B., Jr., 2016 MT 68, ¶ 10, 383 Mont. 48, 368 P.3d 715 (citation omitted). “We will presume that a district court's decision is correct and will not disturb it on appeal unless there is a mistake of law or a finding of fact not supported by substantial evidence that would amount to a clear abuse of discretion.” In re M.N., 2011 MT 245, ¶ 14, 362 Mont. 186, 261 P.3d 1047 (citation omitted). A court may order termination of parental rights based upon a finding established by clear and convincing evidence that the parent of the “youth in need of care” has failed to comply with or demonstrate success in “an appropriate treatment plan that has been approved by the court” and “the conduct or condition of the parents rendering them unfit is unlikely to change within a reasonable time.” Section 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA. When determining whether the conduct or condition of the parent is unlikely to change within a reasonable time, “the court shall enter a finding that continuation of the parent-child legal relationship will likely result in continued abuse or neglect or that the conduct or the condition of the parents renders the parents unfit, unable, or unwilling to give the child adequate parental care.” Section 41-3-609(2), MCA.

¶34 The Department “shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the necessity of removal of a child from the child's home and to reunify families that have been separated by the state.” Section 41-3-423(1)(a), MCA. Reasonable efforts “do not require herculean efforts[.]” In re R.J.F., 2019 MT 113, ¶ 37, 395 Mont. 454, 443 P.3d 387. “Engaging in reasonable efforts requires the development and implementation of voluntary services and/or a treatment plan reasonably designed to address the parent's treatment and other needs precluding the parent from safely parenting.” In re R.J.F., ¶ 37. We have long held that a parent has an obligation to avail themselves of services arranged or referred by DPHHS and to engage with the department to successfully complete their treatment plan. In re R.J.F., ¶ 38 (citing In re C.B., 2014 MT 4, ¶¶ 19, 23, 373 Mont. 204, 316 P.3d 177; In re D.F., 2007 MT 147, ¶ 29, 377 Mont. 461, 161 P.3d 825; In re T.R., 2004 MT 388, ¶ 26, 325 Mont. 125, 104 P.3d 439; In re L.S., 2003 MT 12, ¶ 11, 314 Mont. 42, 63 P.3d 497). Complete compliance by the parents with a treatment plan is required; partial or even substantial compliance is insufficient under § 41-3-609(1)(f)(i), MCA. In re D. V., 2003 MT 160, ¶ 27, 316 Mont. 282, 70 P.3d 1253 (citation omitted). As we have previously stated, “[w]ell-intentioned efforts toward successful completion of a treatment plan do not demonstrate either the completion or the success of the plan.” In re J.W., 2001 MT 86, ¶ 17, 305 Mont. 149, 23 P.3d 916 (citation omitted).

¶35 Here, in the two and a half years between the removal of S.O. and T.O. from K.T.’s home and when the District Court terminated K.T.’s parental rights, K.T. failed to comply with her treatment plan approved by the court despite reasonable efforts of the Department. The Department helped K.T. with housing, counseling, supervised visitations, and provided options for domestic violence support groups, set appointments at the DMV, and worked with K.T. in California for her to become qualified for and begin treatment plan services. These were reasonable efforts made by the Department to reunite K.T. with S.O. and T.O.

¶36 Yet K.T. did not take advantage of the Department's help. K.T. continually missed appointments, failed to communicate, and refused help and services that were offered, set up, and provided to her. K.T. was presented with multiple options for housing close to the children, but instead chose to live in Bridger, despite lacking access to necessary transportation to attend treatment services or appointments. The Department set K.T. up with three separate counselors in Montana and helped her qualify for and access another counselor in California. The Department tried to set K.T. up with a domestic violence support group in Billings, which K.T. refused to attend. K.T. only started attending a domestic violence support group when she moved to California. The Department set up supervised visitations for K.T. and the children, but K.T. frequently missed appointments and was no longer able to complete in-person visitations due to moving to California. The children were negatively affected by the telephonic visits, which made it impossible for K.T. to continue visitations, rendering K.T. unable to complete or make progress towards this treatment task.

¶37 Additionally, the treatment that K.T. did complete was less than successful. K.T. did not meaningfully participate in the parenting fitness assessment and there was very little improvement in K.T.’s parenting during her visitations with the children. Throughout treatment, K.T. continued to prioritize her relationships and needs over the needs of the children. She maintained a dangerous relationship with Father that potentially jeopardized the health and safety of the children. Furthermore, K.T.’s treatment professionals and supervisors provided testimony that K.T. requires and will continue to require additional treatment to address her ongoing parental deficiencies, especially concerning her inability to protect the children from their father.

¶38 Moreover, there is substantial evidence supporting the presumption that the children's best interests are served by keeping the children in their placement. The children are cared for by their paternal grandparents who have supplied the children with all their needs for the preceding 20 months. The paternal grandparents stated that they are willing to continue providing for the children until they reach the age of majority. The children have spent most of their lives in their placement and moving them would cause more harm because the children need permanency.

¶39 Relying on In re R.J.F., K.T. argues the District Court erred when it faulted her for moving to California and the Department did not provide her with adequate services to support her in California. While we agree that the District Court cannot fault K.T. for moving to California to seek family help and K.T. does have a constitutional right to travel, we disagree that the Department did not provide adequate services or that the District Court is unable to consider both the positive and negative effects of the move despite K.T.’s assertions. In re R.J.F. does not change that result. The District Court correctly considered the negative effect of K.T.’s move to California on the children as well as the effect it had on K.T.’s ability to complete important treatment tasks for reunification, i.e., visitations. The move harmed K.T.’s relationship with the children and K.T. did not take advantage of the alternative options in Montana that would have allowed her to stay close to the children. The District Court correctly determined that the Department had provided K.T. with many opportunities and options for completing the treatment plan in California. While K.T. made progress in California, sought out family support, and addressed her housing situation, the Department has shown that after 20 months K.T. still lacks the necessary parental awareness and maturity that the treatment plan was intended to address. Therefore, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Department made reasonable efforts to reunite K.T. with the children in both Montana and California and finding that K.T. failed to comply with or make significant progress towards successfully completing the treatment plan in the 20 months since removal.

¶40 We turn next to K.T.’s argument that the District Court erred in determining K.T. was unlikely to change her condition within a reasonable amount of time. When applying the criteria for termination provided by § 41-3-609, MCA, the question “is not merely whether a parent has made progress or would make some progress in the future, but whether the parent is likely to make enough progress within a reasonable time to overcome the circumstances rendering [them] unfit to parent.” In re A.B., 2020 MT 64, ¶ 27, 399 Mont. 219, 460 P.3d 405 (citations omitted). “To determine whether the conduct or condition is likely to change, the court is required to assess past and present conduct of the parent.” In re A.B., ¶ 27 (citation omitted).

¶41 Here, K.T. has been unable to comply with and complete the treatment plan for over 20 months. Similarly, Timm, Dr. Horn, Wilson, and Bulkley have all testified to K.T.’s continued need for therapy, mental health services, and parenting support to address the parental concerns. K.T.’s persistent behavior, decision-making, and lack of urgency towards completing the tasks has further demonstrated K.T.’s ongoing struggles with completing the treatment plan and her lack of priority in doing so. There is clear and convincing evidence that K.T. requires additional time to successfully progress towards the treatment plan to improve K.T.’s independence, protectiveness, and parenting capabilities. However, there is also clear and convincing evidence that her condition will not change in a reasonable amount of time.

¶42 While K.T. has made some efforts towards completion of her treatment plan by obtaining a job, getting a driver's license, and potentially living in a safe home, the Department has proven K.T. has not addressed all the concerns necessary to render her fit to be a parent. K.T. has not successfully completed the treatment plan tasks and the Department has shown that K.T. has not and will not successfully complete the treatment plan in a reasonable time. In making this determination we are not relying on K.T.’s inability to complete PCIT. We recognize that this task could not be completed until reunification occurred and K.T. did not reach the point where the task could begin. Nor are we holding K.T.’s decision to move to California against her. We recognize that K.T. did so in an effort to receive support from her mother. We focus primarily on K.T.’s failure to protect the children from their father and her prioritization of her relationship with Father over the safety of the children.

¶43 K.T. had 20 months to work on her treatment plan tasks. K.T. continues to maintain a relationship with Father that threatens the wellbeing of herself, the children, and any progress she has made in therapy. Similarly, K.T. has made little progress in parenting skills through the completion of the parenting class, nor has she seen improvement during visitations. K.T. continues to need therapy and support for her mental health and her traumatic relationships, and she continues to struggle with her own independence.

¶44 K.T.’s actions speak louder than words and, in this case, the Department has shown that K.T. is unable to provide the safety and security that S.O. and T.O. deserve, nor does she prioritize the needs of the children over her own relationships. K.T. consistently put off completing tasks, missed appointments, and did not show that the tasks she did complete were successful in treating her behavior. The Department has shown that K.T., through her own actions and conduct, cannot remedy the conditions that render her unfit to parent anytime soon. Therefore, the District Court's conclusion that K.T.’s condition would not change in a reasonable time is supported by substantial evidence and is not an abuse of discretion.

¶45 Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating K.T.’s parental rights. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

¶46 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.

LAURIE McKINNON

We Concur: KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY INGRID GUSTAFSON BETH BAKER JIM RICE