Background
A.M.S. lived continuously with her mother, A.M.N.L., since birth. Her father, T.J.S., had parenting time under a 2019 plan, but that time was automatically suspended after he was charged with partner or family member assault in 2022. His request to reinstate parenting time was denied, and he had no further contact with A.M.S. before the termination hearing.
In 2024, A.M.N.L. and her partner, Q.O., petitioned to terminate T.J.S.’s parental rights and permit Q.O. to adopt A.M.S. T.J.S. had made one partial child-support payment between May 2022 and June 2025 and owed more than $15,000 in arrears. After receiving a 90-day continuance, T.J.S. sought another continuance shortly before the hearing, asserting counsel needed more time to prepare. The District Court denied that request, terminated T.J.S.’s rights, and approved the adoption.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the District Court erred to the extent it treated the parties’ stipulation that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply as dispositive: ICWA protects interests belonging to the child, tribe, and federal government, and parents cannot waive or stipulate away its application. The error was harmless, however, because the record gave the court no reason to know that A.M.S. was an “Indian child” under ICWA. Although T.J.S. asserted Native ancestry and believed he might be eligible to enroll in the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, he was not a tribal member, and A.M.S. was not the biological child of a tribal member.
The Court also held that the denial of a second continuance was within the District Court’s discretion. T.J.S. had eight months to prepare, counsel had represented him for six months, and the court had already granted a 90-day continuance. Finally, the Court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim: counsel researched ICWA, filed motions and objections, and cross-examined witnesses, and T.J.S. showed neither deficient representation nor prejudice. He did not meaningfully challenge the findings supporting termination, including years without contact, substantial support arrears, and domestic-violence-related conduct.
Key Takeaways
- Parents cannot waive ICWA or stipulate that it does not apply; courts must independently assess whether ICWA may govern.
- An unsupported or equivocal assertion of Native ancestry does not alone create a reason to know that a child is an Indian child.
- In a contested adoption termination, a second continuance may properly be denied after prior preparation time and a granted continuance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that ICWA’s protections are not merely personal rights of the parents and cannot be resolved by agreement of the litigants. But it also confirms that ICWA notice obligations are not triggered by speculation about possible ancestry or prospective tribal enrollment where the statutory definition is not met.
For private termination and stepparent-adoption cases, the ruling illustrates the importance of developing a concrete ICWA record while also showing that claims of counsel inexperience require an objective showing of deficient advocacy and resulting prejudice.