Background
A.B.L., a member of the Crow Tribe, was removed from her mother’s care in March 2022 after her mother drove while intoxicated with the child in the vehicle. The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services placed A.B.L. with the family that had adopted her three older siblings. The District Court adjudicated her a youth in need of care, transferred the mother’s case to an ICWA Family Recovery Court, and approved a treatment plan addressing chemical dependency, mental health, parenting, employment, and domestic violence.
After the mother maintained sobriety and engaged in treatment, the Department began a trial home visit in spring 2024. The mother relapsed within four months, and the child was removed again. Following further services, the Department petitioned for permanent guardianship in May 2025. After a four-day hearing, the District Court found that the mother had not achieved lasting sobriety or sufficient stability, that additional reunification efforts likely would be unproductive, and that guardianship with the child’s siblings’ adoptive family was in the child’s best interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It held that substantial evidence supported the District Court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that further reunification efforts likely would be unproductive. The lower court properly considered the mother’s long-term pattern of relapse, unsafe decision-making, unstable housing and income, and continued involvement in unhealthy relationships—not merely the August 2024 relapse or substance abuse alone.
The Court also held that the Department satisfied ICWA and MICWA’s active-efforts requirement. The record showed that the Department continued contacting the mother and coordinating with her probation officer, counselor, psychiatrist, and other providers after the relapse. The Court concluded that the District Court did not violate MICWA’s prohibition against treating substance abuse or other listed circumstances, standing alone, as sufficient proof of likely harm.
Finally, the Court found support for the determination that guardianship served A.B.L.’s best interests. By the hearing, she had spent nearly three and a half years outside her mother’s home, lived in a stable placement with her three siblings, and retained connections to her extended family, culture, and Tribe. The Crow Tribe supported the guardianship. The memorandum opinion is noncitable and does not serve as precedent.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s progress on a treatment plan does not bar guardianship when the evidence shows that the parent has not successfully applied the learned skills to provide safe and stable care.
- Active efforts may be sufficient even when reunification ultimately fails, including when the Department continues outreach and coordination after deciding to pursue guardianship.
- MICWA prohibits reliance on substance abuse or other listed circumstances alone, but permits a court to consider those circumstances as part of a broader, evidence-based assessment of safety and parental capacity.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Montana courts evaluate permanent guardianship under state law, ICWA, and MICWA when a parent has made genuine progress but repeatedly has been unable to sustain safe reunification. The inquiry focuses on the complete record, the Department’s affirmative reunification work, and whether further efforts realistically would succeed.
The opinion also emphasizes the child’s need for permanency, stability, sibling relationships, and cultural continuity. Because the Court designated the ruling a memorandum opinion under its internal rules, however, it may not be cited and does not constitute precedent.