Committee hears bill to codify conduct rules for child‑protection specialists; DPHHS, union urge no action

Sen. Daniel Emerich opened the committee hearing on Senate Bill 272 by describing the measure as a short, targeted statute meant to prohibit certain conduct by child protection specialists.

“It just puts a few guidelines for child protection specialists on things that they should not be doing,” Sen. Daniel Emerich said as he introduced the bill.

The bill would make explicit several behaviors that, if proven, would qualify as misconduct: threatening to file criminal charges to deter a person from contesting a child‑abuse and neglect action; taking steps that prevent a person from becoming a foster parent or guardian because that person opposed the department’s position or assisted a parent in obtaining counsel; and related prohibitions. The bill also references the ombudsman complaint process as an enforcement mechanism.

Opponents included Justin Hockaluk of the Montana Federation of Public Employees, who said staff already follow these standards and that placing the language in statute is unnecessary. “This bill is really unnecessary,” Hockaluk said, arguing that the language duplicates existing practice and could imply misconduct where none exists.

Nikki Grossberg, division administrator for Child and Family Services at the Department of Public Health and Human Services, opposed the bill and described existing oversight and complaint routes. Grossberg said the department has an employee conduct policy and multiple complaint channels — supervisor, regional administration, a community safety liaison, human resources, the ombudsman and the courts — and that aspects of the bill already appear in statute and administrative rules.

“We are governed by a much more robust policy around our conduct,” Grossberg said, adding that provisions cited in the bill are already addressed by statute (she cited the ombudsman process at 41‑3‑12) or by administrative rules (Title 37, chapter 51) where foster‑care licensing is concerned.

Committee members questioned officials about frequency and outcomes of complaints. Grossberg said the department employs roughly “about 210” child‑protection specialists and reported about 20 vacancies; she said there are roughly 2,100 children in foster care and on the order of several thousand investigations (a number given in committee testimony was about 6,500 investigations, which the witness said she did not have the data packet to confirm on the spot). She described an internal process for cataloging complaints and for escalating through supervision, human resources and the ombudsman when necessary.

Sponsor Emerich said the bill grew from a specific family’s case the previous summer, in which he said county removal was later shown to be unfounded and family members were discouraged from assisting because of concerns about departmental reaction. Emerich said the statute is narrowly aimed at preventing that type of conduct.

The committee heard no informational witnesses beyond DPHHS in the record and took no vote during the hearing.

The discussion centered on whether statute is the right place for narrow conduct prohibitions that DPHHS and unions said are already covered by policy and existing statutes and whether the change could carry unintended consequences for caseworkers and families.