MontanaProposal would raise proof standards in Montana child welfare cases
The proposal would require stronger proof for court decisions about whether children need care, whether parents receive services, and whether parental rights end.
What it does
Courts would need clear and convincing evidence to decide that a child needs care or to grant temporary or long-term custody. Different proof rules apply when federal law for an Indian child governs.
Ending a parent’s legal relationship with a child would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Different proof rules apply when federal law for an Indian child governs.
A court finding that preservation or reunification services are not needed would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The text lists grounds for making that finding.
Argument forParents could be less likely to lose custody or parental rights based on evidence that does not meet the proposal’s higher proof standards.
Argument againstChildren could remain at risk longer if courts need stronger proof before ordering custody or ending parental rights.
More detail
Courts would need clear and convincing evidence to decide that a child needs care or to grant temporary or long-term custody. This applies to decisions in Montana child abuse and neglect cases about whether a child needs care and whether to grant temporary or long-term custody. Different standards apply when federal law for an Indian children’s case governs. These proposed standards would apply if the bill took effect.
Courts would need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to end a parent’s legal relationship with a child. This applies to decisions ending parental rights in Montana child abuse and neglect cases. Different standards apply when federal law for an Indian children’s case governs. This proposed standard would apply if the bill took effect.
Courts would need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that preservation or reunification services are not needed. This applies to court decisions about providing services to parents in abuse and neglect cases. The text lists grounds for a court to find these services are not needed, including certain serious harm and prior termination cases. This proposed standard would apply if the bill took effect.
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(S) Died in ProcessDied
- Mar 26(H) Reconsidered Previous Action
- Vote recorded ReconsAction - Regier. Result: fail.Lower
- Mar 25(H) 2nd ReadingMinor
- Vote recorded Do Concur. Result: fail.Lower
- Mar 25(H) Scheduled for 2nd ReadingMinor
- Mar 20(H) Committee Report - (H) Judiciary
- Mar 19(H) Committee Executive Action - (H) Judiciary
- Vote recorded be_concurred_in. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 17(H) Hearing - (H) Judiciary
- Feb 12(H) 1st Reading
- Feb 12(H) Referred to Committee - (H) JudiciaryMinor
- Feb 11(S) Transmitted to House
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 11(S) 3rd Reading
- Feb 11(S) Scheduled for 3rd ReadingMinor
- Feb 10(S) 2nd ReadingMinor
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 10(S) Scheduled for 2nd ReadingMinor
- Feb 3(S) Committee Report - (S) Judiciary
- Vote recorded do_pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 3(S) Committee Executive Action - (S) Judiciary
- Jan 28(S) Hearing - (S) Judiciary
- Jan 17(S) Referred to Committee - (S) JudiciaryMinor
- Jan 16(S) 1st Reading
- Jan 15(S) Introduced
- Jan 15(LC) Draft Delivered to Requester
- Jan 8(LC) Draft Ready for Delivery
- Jan 7(LC) Draft in Assembly
- Jan 7(LC) Draft in Final Drafter Review
- 2024
- Dec 18(LC) Draft in Input/Proofing
- Dec 12(LC) Draft in Edit
- Dec 11(LC) Draft in Legal Review
- Nov 27(LC) Drafter AssignedIntroduced
Criminal Justice