Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Court Dv Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to require domestic‑violence training for judges and tighten guardian ad litem rules draws split testimony
Summary
Senate Bill 318 would add mandatory, evidence‑based domestic‑violence training for judiciary involved in family law and tighten qualifications for guardian ad litem (GAL) roles; proponents described failures in family court that they say led to harm, while judicial and legal groups warned of statutory overreach and access problems in rural areas.
Senate Bill 318, presented by a sponsor from the Senate, would revise custody law and require evidence‑based domestic‑violence (DV) training for judges and court professionals handling family law, add best‑interest factors regarding abuse, and tighten qualifications and procedures for guardian ad litem appointments.
Proponents — a long list that included survivors, advocacy groups and national experts — urged the committee to pass the bill, calling it "Brody's Law" in memory of a child whose family supporters say was failed by the family court system. Kyla Hailstone of the Montana Family Court Aware Project said the bill follows years of study and aims to close gaps that allow unqualified experts and questionable practices to sway custody decisions. "This bill accomplishes this by protecting children and setting protective standards, closes loopholes in the current code that allows exploitation of children and continuing the cycle of trauma," she said.
Survivors and advocates gave emotional testimony describing reunification camps, what they called "post‑separation abuse," and instances where courts ordered children returned to allegedly abusive parents. A survivor who identified her son Brody urged passage, calling the bill "a common sense child safety law" and a way to require evidence‑based training for judges and other court professionals.
Opponents included the Judicial Branch, the Montana Judges Association, magistrates and several family law professionals. Court administrators said the judicial education committee — the Supreme Court‑supervised body that sets judicial curricula — is the appropriate vehicle to develop and require judge training rather than placing mandates in statute. "I'm here as a reluctant opponent," Bruce Spencer of the Montana Judges Association told the committee, saying judicial education should be coordinated through the Judicial Education Committee rather than legislated into statute.
Other opponents, including mental‑health professionals and guardian ad litem practitioners, warned that the bill’s language requiring GALs to "be attorneys" (a substitution of "shall" for "may" in one section) would greatly reduce access to GAL services — particularly in rural and underserved counties — and increase costs for families. Mental‑health witnesses said the bill’s expansion of direct child participation and broad use of the phrase "evidence‑based" could have unintended harms if implemented without careful definition.
Committee members asked detailed questions about training oversight, the definition of "evidence‑based," the role of district versus limited‑jurisdiction courts, and the GAL requirement. Several witnesses and the sponsor said they were open to amendments to address statutory placement of training requirements, GAL qualifications, and carve‑outs for victim advocates in civil protection‑order hearings.
No final committee vote was recorded during the hearing; sponsors said they were willing to continue work with the judicial education committee and stakeholders to refine language.
