In re S.M.

Full title: IN THE MATTER OF: S.M., A Youth in Need of Care.

Court: Supreme Court of Montana

Date published: Nov 2, 2022

DA 21-0622 (Mont. Nov. 2, 2022)

Opinion

DA 21-0622

11-02-2022

IN THE MATTER OF: S.M., A Youth in Need of Care.

Laurie McKinnon, Justice

ORDER

Laurie McKinnon, Justice

Appellant Mother (T.M.) has filed a Petition for Rehearing of this Court's Opinion in In re S.M., 2022 MT 187N, 2022 Mont. LEXIS 897 (Opinion), which held clear and convincing evidence supported the termination of T.M.'s parental rights based on abandonment. We have considered T.M.'s Petition and the State's Response. We conclude that T.M. is asking this Court to reweigh the evidence and to reconsider our conclusion that there was sufficient evidence supporting the District Court's findings and conclusion of abandonment. We thoroughly reviewed the record prior to issuance of our Opinion and considered all material facts and arguments of counsel. Indeed, we considered two arguments made by T.M. and concluded the District Court had erred. Those errors did not, however, affect the District Court's conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence to support the alternative theory for termination based on abandonment.

Under M. R. App. P. 20, this Court seldom grants petitions for rehearing. The Rule makes clear that this Court will entertain a petition for rehearing on very limited grounds. Specifically, this Court will consider a petition for rehearing only if the opinion "overlooked some fact material to the decision," if the opinion "overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have proven decisive to the case," or if the "decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed" by this Court. M. R. App. P. 20(a)(i)-(iii).

Here, T.M. refers to evidence that she asserts the District Court and this Court overlooked. We did consider this evidence and the entire record in reaching our conclusion. Having fully considered Appellant's petition, the Court concludes that rehearing is not warranted under M. R. App. P. 20. The Court did not overlook material facts or issues raised by the parties or fail to address a controlling statute or decision that conflicts with the Opinion issued in this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this Order to all counsel of record.

MIKE McGRATH, LAURIE McKINNON, BETH BAKER, JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, INGRID GUSTAFSON