Montana hearing on SB 464 would expand court-appointed advocates but draws sharp objections from attorneys

Senate committees opened a hearing on Senate Bill 464 on Tuesday, a measure that would change how Montana law refers to and appoints court‑appointed special advocates in dependency and neglect proceedings.

Senator Lentz, the bill sponsor, told the committee the bill is intended to clarify the role and duties of what the statute calls a “special advocate,” align that language with existing volunteer programs and expand the pool of people who can serve. He said the bill is part of broader efforts to tighten timelines and improve representation in child protective services cases, noting recent changes to initial‑hearing and show‑cause schedules and the statutory inclusion of counsel for children.

Supporters told the committee the bill would codify standards and expand coverage. April Barnings, executive director of the Montana CASA GAL Association, said her organization represents 16 local CASA/GAL programs and serves “approximately 1,000 children in district and tribal courts across the state of Montana,” and that SB 464 “solidifies and clarifies the role and responsibilities of the GAL Association.” Kyla Hailstone, a paralegal investigator, said current code creates confusion between legal representation and advocacy and argued the bill would “clearly define the vital roles of legal representation versus advocacy and also opens available service pools.”

Opponents — a group that included public defenders, county attorneys and private practitioners who handle dependency and neglect matters — urged the committee to reject the bill. The Deputy Chief County Attorney in the Child Abuse and Neglect Division of the Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office (Ms. Webster) told the committee that applying the bill statewide to correct a problem identified in one county could leave large gaps elsewhere, and said “there would be approximately 400 children without a special advocate at this time.”

Several attorney‑guardians ad litem and attorneys for children told the committee the bill risks removing or diluting the guardian‑ad‑litem role that provides legally trained, court‑authorized advocacy. Judy Williams, a child‑welfare law specialist, said removing the term “guardian ad litem” would be “a detriment to defining what services children will receive.” Attorney Heidi He Does It said, “This bill eliminates the most important advocate for each child in child abuse neglect proceedings in hopes of finding volunteers to step in and provide cost savings to the state,” and argued rural jurisdictions lack the volunteer capacity the bill assumes.

Witnesses raised practical questions about how volunteer special advocates would be recruited, vetted, trained and supervised if they were to replace paid attorney guardians ad litem in some cases. Billing County practitioners and other rural‑area attorneys told the committee that CASA organizations do not exist in some districts and that volunteer programs may be unable to meet the workload or confidentiality requirements of dependency and neglect cases.

Several witnesses noted statutory and procedural nuances. Testimony cited Title 25 (Montana Civil Rules of Procedure) and Title 41 (child welfare statutes) as the current legal framework that distinguishes counsel for children from guardians ad litem; proponents and opponents disagreed about whether SB 464 would improve clarity or create harmful conflation between advocacy and legal representation. Committee members received a printed amendment from the sponsor during the hearing.

The hearing produced no recorded committee vote during the transcript provided. Committee members asked clarifying questions after testimony; Representative Schoemer asked proponents whether it is normal to codify language that pertains to a private organization and was told the bill is meant to broaden application beyond a single nonprofit. The sponsor and several witnesses said the intent is to ensure every child receives both qualified advocacy and licensed legal representation, but attorneys who regularly serve as guardians ad litem cautioned that statutory change should not reduce legally enforceable protections.

The committee will consider the testimony and the amendment before any further action; no committee decision was recorded in the portion of the hearing included in the transcript.