Opinion
DA 22-0527
05-09-2023
IN THE MATTER OF: S.L., B.L., AND J.L., Youths in Need of Care.
ORDER
Appellant T.L. (Father) has filed a petition for rehearing of this Court's March 15, 2023 Memorandum Opinion affirming the District Court's termination of his parental rights. In the Matter of S.L., B.L., and J.L., Youths in Need of Care, 2023 MT 68N. The State of Montana objects.
This Court will consider a petition for rehearing presented only upon the following grounds:
(i) That it overlooked some fact material to the decision;
(ii) That it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case; or
(iii) That its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not, addressed by the supreme court.M. R. App.P. 20(1)(a).
Father invokes grounds (i) and (ii), arguing that we overlooked a fact material to our decision and a question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to his case. Particularly, Father takes issue with our statement rejecting his jurisdictional argument that, "Had Father argued in the District Court that the Department did not comply with the law when it had Mother but not Father sign the voluntary out-of-home plan, the court could have considered it." In the Matter of S.L., ¶ 18. Father asserts that he raised an argument about the lawfulness of the unsigned plan in an oral motion to dismiss on the first day of the termination hearing, which he noted in his appellate briefing.
The State responds that Father misinterprets the statement to mean that this Court did not believe we could consider the issue because Father did not assert it below. The State argues that the statement addresses the fact that had Father raised the argument about the lawfulness of the unsigned plan earlier in the proceedings, the District Court would have had jurisdiction to consider it. Additionally, the State argues that we did not overlook the issue because our opinion goes on in the following paragraph to address the merits of Father's argument.
Having fully considered Father's petition and the State's response, we conclude that rehearing is not warranted. Although the challenged statement could have been clearer, it was included in a discussion of Father's jurisdictional argument. In the Matter of S.L., ¶ 18. The statement indicated that had Father raised arguments from the outset regarding the lawfulness of the unsigned plan, those arguments would have allowed its timely consideration; but they still would not have affected the District Court's jurisdiction to hear the case. We went on to consider the merits of Father's argument in the following paragraph. We rejected Father's contention that the unsigned plan violated Department policy and his right to due process because he stipulated to the Department's petition for emergency protective services and temporary investigative authority, filed the day the out-of-home plan expired. In the Matter of S.L.. ¶ 19.
We did not overlook any material facts or arguments Father raised. Father identifies no proper ground for rehearing under the applicable rule.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Father's petition for rehearing is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.