Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to raise burdens of proof in child-abuse cases fails after extended floor debate
Summary
Senate Bill 156, which would have raised evidentiary standards for child-abuse and neglect proceedings—requiring clear-and-convincing evidence for adjudication/temporary custody and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for termination—failed on second reading after a contentious floor debate over child safety and parental rights.
Helena — The Montana House on March 25 rejected Senate Bill 156, a proposal to increase the burdens of proof in child abuse and neglect cases, after an extended and often emotional floor debate that split lawmakers.
The question and outcome: The motion to recommend concurrence on SB 156 failed on second reading after the clerk recorded 44 votes in favor and 56 opposed.
Why it mattered: The bill would have changed the standards courts must apply before they may issue orders in child-abuse and neglect proceedings. Sponsors said raising the standard would better protect parental rights in cases of state intervention; opponents warned it would impede timely action to protect children and could leave at-risk children in dangerous homes.
What supporters said: Representative Mercer, speaking for the bill on the floor, outlined the differences among the three standards of proof at issue: preponderance of the evidence (the current civil standard), clear and convincing evidence (a higher civil standard), and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard). Mercer said SB 156 would require clear and convincing evidence for orders of adjudication and temporary legal custody, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for termination of parental rights. “If you go back to page 6…we're talking about the standard for abuse neglect petitions,” Mercer said, adding that the change aimed to ensure the state does not intervene in parent-child relationships without an adequate basis.
What opponents said: Representative Powell rose in opposition, saying the bill would raise the standard for temporary legal custody and could prevent timely state intervention and access to services that keep families together. Powell said child-protection casework includes offering services to parents with substance-use or mental-health disorders, and higher evidentiary thresholds could stall those efforts. Representative Jay Fitzpatrick described situations of severe child abuse and urged protecting children, calling the existing preponderance standard “more than sufficient.” Multiple other members warned that raising the standard could leave children in harm’s way and cut off the state's ability to act early.
Vote and outcome: The clerk recorded 44 ayes and 56 noes; SB 156 failed to pass second reading and will not advance in its current form from the House.
Background: The bill was presented to the committee with text changes at pages 6, 12 and 15 that would alter the standards applied for adjudication, custody and termination orders. Proponents framed the measure as a protection of parental rights; opponents framed it as a public-safety risk that could make removals and services harder to obtain when allegations first arise.
What’s next: Because the House rejected concurrence on second reading, SB 156 does not advance from this chamber in its present form. Lawmakers and stakeholders may revisit the issue in subsequent sessions or through different legislation, but no change to the evidence standards will be enacted this session based on SB 156.
