Committee hears testimony on SB 180 to add 'culture and heritage' to parenting-plan factors

The House Health and Human Services Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 180, a measure that would add a requirement that district courts consider a child's "culture and heritage" when crafting parenting plans in divorce cases.

Senator Susan Weber (Senate District 8), who sponsored the bill, said the proposal grew out of concerns from Native communities but would apply to all children. "All this bill asks for ... is to consider the child's culture and heritage," Weber said, describing the addition as a "fifteenth" factor judges may use when determining a child's best interest.

Proponents told the committee the change would fix a gap they say exists between how foster-care and family-law systems treat cultural identity. "SB 180 ensures native children's cultural identities and heritage are recognized in custody and adoption decisions," said Kallie Parr, Little Shell Chippewa and early childhood tribal coordinator at 0 to 5 Montana, who urged members to support a due pass. Kyla Hailstone, paralegal investigator and director of the Montana Family Court Awareness Project, testified that Title 41 standards for culturally appropriate services apply in some contexts but are not consistently applied in Title 40 family law cases and that SB 180 "bridges a significant gap." Amani Kindness Coleman, tribal policy analyst at the Montana Budget and Policy Center, said culture is a "significant contributor to a child's developmental needs."

Supporters, including Keaton Sunchild of Western Native Voice, said the bill would help keep children connected to tribal families and traditions when custody disputes arise and could address situations in which descendants who are not formally enrolled are at risk of losing cultural ties.

Some committee members pressed the sponsor on language and potential unintended consequences. Representative Nicola Caakos asked whether the bill would require courts to consider a child's "ethnicity" broadly (for example, German or Mexican), and Weber acknowledged the language could be read that way but said her intent was to address Native heritage and that she was open to clarifying amendments. Representative Love cited Article II, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution, which guarantees human dignity and equal protection, and asked whether the bill might conflict with that provision and invite legal action; Weber said she did not see a conflict and described the change as complementary to existing law.

Members sought assurances that the new factor would be informational—another tool in a judge's discretion—not a mandate about outcomes. "No single part of them is mandated," Kyla Hailstone said in response to a question about the bill's placement alongside existing best-interest factors. Weber repeatedly told members she would accept amendments to refine the language and remove wording (she referenced striking "bridal" and "ethnic") if that helped clarify intent.

The committee did not take a final vote on the measure. Chair Esher said members appeared to have enough agreement to work on amendments and pursue executive action (EA) after edits, noting the bill is scheduled through April 1. The hearing was closed and the committee adjourned.

What happens next: Committee staff and members said they will draft and consider amendments recommended by members and stakeholders; the sponsor said she would support edits to make the bill clearer while retaining the core requirement that judges may consider a child's culture and heritage.