Background
This case arose from the fourth removal of M.F. by the Montana Department of Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division. In October 2023, U.S. Marshals visited the mother’s residence to arrest a probation absconder and discovered steroids and a blow torch; the Department’s subsequent investigation revealed ongoing substance abuse, including the mother testing positive for methamphetamine, amphetamines, and THC. M.F. herself tested positive for methamphetamine by hair follicle test — her third such positive result in the Department’s history with the family — and was found to be academically delayed due to inadequate home schooling. The District Court of the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County, adjudicated M.F. a Youth in Need of Care and approved a treatment plan targeting the mother’s chemical dependency, mental health, parenting skills, housing, and criminal justice involvement. The father’s parental rights were also terminated following his federal conviction for distribution of dangerous drugs; he did not appeal.
Over the ensuing two years, the Department undertook extensive reunification efforts: jointly developing a voluntary service plan with the mother before adjudication, arranging four separate chemical dependency evaluations, referring the mother to multiple outpatient and inpatient treatment programs, providing a visitation specialist, conducting a SENECA kinship search, pursuing an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children for placement with a relative, providing gas cards for transportation to treatment, and offering to arrange addiction counseling in jail. Despite these efforts, the mother repeatedly failed to engage — missing appointments, declining inpatient treatment bed dates, continuing to test positive for controlled substances, and being arrested for DUI. She ultimately completed inpatient treatment at the Recovery Center of Montana in early May 2025 but was observed drinking alcohol at a bar within two weeks of discharge and failed to follow through with recommended aftercare. The Department filed its petition for termination in December 2024, and the District Court terminated the mother’s parental rights on July 23, 2025.
On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, the mother raised two issues: whether the Department engaged in reasonable efforts to prevent removal and reunify the family, and whether the District Court erred by not preferring guardianship over termination. She argued principally that the Legislature’s 2023 amendments to Montana’s Child Abuse and Neglect Act — which significantly expanded the statutory definition of “reasonable efforts” and were informally dubbed “ICWA for all” — rendered prior case law irrelevant and that the Department failed to present specific evidence at the termination hearing addressing each enumerated statutory requirement.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ingrid Gustafson, affirmed the termination of parental rights. The court held that the Department satisfied every element of the reasonable efforts requirement under § 41-3-423(1), MCA, as amended in 2023. Addressing the mother’s statutory argument, the court confirmed that while the 2023 legislative amendments more particularly describe what reasonable efforts entail, they do not transform reasonable efforts into a standalone prerequisite for termination under § 41-3-609, MCA. Rather, consistent with prior precedent, inadequate reunification efforts remain relevant only to the extent they bear on whether a parent’s unfitness is unlikely to change within a reasonable time — one of the two findings required for termination of an adjudicated YINC’s parent’s rights.
The court rejected the mother’s claim that the Department had failed to present evidence of compliance with specific statutory subsections. The record demonstrated that the Department had conducted a comprehensive family assessment; identified and actively assisted the mother in obtaining services; conducted kinship searches and family engagement meetings; investigated M.F.’s potential Indian heritage under ICWA before confirming she was not an Indian child; maintained near-daily visitation with a visitation specialist; provided financial assistance for transportation; and explored every available treatment option over the life of the case. As to the mother’s argument that the Department was required to provide a trial home visit under § 41-3-423(1)(b)(vii), MCA, the court held that the statute cannot be read to mandate such a visit when the parent has failed to address the very conditions that make the home unsafe for the child. The court reaffirmed the long-standing principle that Montana law requires reasonable, not herculean, efforts from the Department and that parents bear a reciprocal obligation to avail themselves of offered services.
Key Takeaways
- Montana’s 2023 “ICWA for all” amendments to the Child Abuse and Neglect Act expand the definition of “reasonable efforts” but do not create a new standalone termination requirement — inadequate efforts remain relevant only to the likelihood-of-change prong of § 41-3-609(1)(f), MCA.
- The trial home visit provision in § 41-3-423(1)(b)(vii), MCA, is not an absolute mandate; it does not require the Department to place a child in a home the parent has failed to make safe.
- Evidence of Department efforts presented throughout all stages of the proceedings — not just at the termination hearing — may be considered by the court in evaluating whether the reasonable efforts standard was met.
- Parents have a reciprocal legal obligation to engage with offered services; a parent’s sustained failure to do so, despite extensive Department assistance, supports termination even under the heightened post-2023 reasonable efforts standard.
Why It Matters
This decision is the Montana Supreme Court’s first significant interpretation of the 2023 legislative overhaul of the state’s Child Abuse and Neglect Act reasonable efforts standard in the termination context. Child welfare practitioners and family law attorneys statewide will need to understand that the expanded statutory checklist — while imposing more specific obligations on the Department — does not restructure the existing termination framework or create new procedural barriers to permanency for children who have been long separated from parents unable to achieve sobriety and stability.
The ruling also provides practical guidance on the limits of Department obligations: diligent case planning, multi-agency coordination, and active assistance with services satisfy the statute; the Department is not required to guarantee a parent’s success or provide a trial home visit when the preconditions for safe reunification remain unmet. For attorneys representing parents in child welfare proceedings, the decision underscores that challenges to reasonable efforts must be raised contemporaneously at each stage of proceedings rather than preserved solely for appeal from a termination order.