MontanaProposal would set conduct rules for child protection specialists
The proposal would set conduct rules for child protection specialists and allow people to report alleged violations to the state political practices commissioner.
What it does
Specialists and certification applicants could not threaten criminal charges to deter someone from contesting a child welfare matter. They would also have to use unbiased professionals with relevant qualifications when arranging services or evaluations.
People could complain to the state political practices commissioner about alleged violations. The department could share related case information for an investigation; hearings and complaint documents would be private, but decisions would be public.
Argument forFamilies and potential foster caregivers could have clearer protections against threats or being turned away for seeking legal help or speaking up.
Argument againstPrivate hearings and complaint records could make it harder for the public to see how officials handle claims about child protection specialists.
More detail
Child protection specialists and certification applicants would have to follow rules against certain threats and placement decisions, and use qualified, unbiased professionals when arranging services or evaluations. The rules would cover child protection specialists and people applying for specialist certification. A person could not be kept from foster placement or guardianship solely for advising a parent against the department, recommending a lawyer, or testifying to a public body.
The commissioner of political practices would receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of the conduct rules. A person could file a complaint about an alleged violation by a specialist or certification applicant. The commissioner could dismiss complaints that are frivolous, lack enough information, or do not allege a possible violation. The department could disclose related case information to the commissioner for an investigation. A hearing about these complaints would be closed to the public, and related complaint documents would not be open for inspection. The commissioner's decision would be public.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Died
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2025
- May 23(H) Died in CommitteeDied
- Mar 25(H) Tabled in Committee - (H) Human ServicesMinor
- Vote recorded to_table. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 5(H) Hearing - (H) Human Services
- Feb 28(S) Fiscal Note Printed
- Feb 28(S) Fiscal Note Unsigned
- Feb 28(S) Fiscal Note ReceivedMinor
- Feb 26(H) 1st Reading
- Feb 26(H) Referred to Committee - (H) Human ServicesMinor
- Feb 25(H) Fiscal Note Requested
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 25(S) Transmitted to House
- Feb 25(S) 3rd Reading
- Feb 25(S) Scheduled for 3rd ReadingMinor
- Feb 24(S) 2nd ReadingMinor
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 24(S) Scheduled for 2nd ReadingMinor
- Feb 22(S) Fiscal Note Requested
- Feb 20(S) Committee Report - (S) Judiciary
- Vote recorded do_pass_as_amended. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 20(S) Committee Executive Action - (S) Judiciary
- Feb 8(S) Hearing - (S) Judiciary
- Feb 7(S) Referred to Committee - (S) JudiciaryMinor
- Feb 6(S) 1st Reading
- Feb 5(S) Introduced
- Feb 4(LC) Draft Delivered to Requester
- Feb 4(LC) Draft Ready for Delivery
- Jan 30(LC) Draft in Assembly
- Jan 30(LC) Draft in Input/Proofing
- Jan 28(LC) Draft in Edit
- Jan 28(LC) Draft in Legal Review
- 2024
- Oct 18(LC) Draft Taken Off Hold
- Oct 17(LC) Draft On Hold
- Aug 28(LC) Drafter AssignedIntroduced
Government & Ethics