Committee hears broad tribal and advocacy support to remove sunset from Montana Indian Child Welfare Act

Senator Jonathan Windiboy introduced Senate Bill 147 on behalf of his district and asked the House Human Services Committee to remove the law’s 2025 sunset so the Montana Indian Child Welfare Act (state ICWA) can continue to operate.

Tribal leaders, tribal attorneys, advocacy groups and child-welfare professionals gave sustained, unanimous-in-substance support during the hearing. Alyssa Snow, representing the Blackfeet Tribe, Fort Belknap Indian Community and the Chippewa Cree of Rocky Boy, said, “the aforementioned tribal governments stand here today in strong support of Senate Bill 147,” and argued removing the sunset would help state agencies meet federal ICWA standards and reduce cultural displacement of Indigenous children.

Members of the Indian Law Section of the State Bar, the ACLU of Montana and local caseworkers described the statute as a Montana-specific effort to keep Native children connected to their families and cultures. Lillian Alvernaz, chair of the Indian Law Section, told the committee the bill reflects months of collaboration across tribes, parents’ attorneys, state attorneys and judges. Marcy McLean of the ACLU cited data showing Native children are overrepresented in foster care — noting 2020 figures indicating Native children make up about 12% of the population but over 30% of children in foster care — and said the state law builds on federal protections to reduce that disparity.

The bill contains several Montana-specific provisions that witnesses highlighted: an expanded and defined “active efforts” requirement intended to guide social work practice (identified in testimony as section 8); optional “heritage guidance plans” that allow tribes, adoptive parents or guardians and tribes to agree on cultural contacts and access to tribal benefits without making those plans mandatory; guardianship reporting language to keep tribes informed about children’s wellbeing; provisions regarding Qualified Expert Witnesses (QEWs) tailored to tribal preferences; and transfer-of-jurisdiction mechanics to clarify tribal/state coordination.

Sarah Crawford, a tribal attorney, explained the heritage guidance plans are optional and “do not overburden the guardians or adoptive parents.” Brooke Barker Taylor (assistant attorney general, personal capacity) described guardianship reports in section 4 as discretionary tools for courts to request information about a child’s wellbeing, cultural engagement and access to benefits, not as automatic grounds to revoke guardianships.

The Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) filed a narrowly scoped objection. Nikki Grossberg, Division Administrator for Child and Family Services, said the department supports removing the sunset but recommended two technical additions to the amendment packet: language clarifying that failure to follow a heritage guidance plan is not grounds to set aside an adoption or guardianship, and clarification that courts have discretion (a “may”) rather than a mandatory duty (“shall”) in requiring annual guardian reports. Grossberg described several of the specific drafting items she preferred be included in the amendment packet provided to members.

Committee members pursued technical questions about transfer-of-jurisdiction language and placement-preference drafting. Sponsors agreed to restore language tied to vacating transfer orders so that, if a tribal court declines jurisdiction after a transfer is initiated, state court proceedings remain intact. Kelly Driscoll, who helped draft the legislation, said the active-efforts provision gives more concrete guidance to social workers than the federal floor does.

Senator Windiboy closed the hearing by recounting personal family history and urging a due pass. He also acknowledged a fiscal note attached to the packet and said sponsors sought amendments to reduce projected costs; a figure near $210,000 was mentioned in the hearing record as associated with the fiscal note.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 147 after questions; no committee vote was taken during the session.

Next steps: the committee will consider amendments during executive action; committee members discussed returning for executive action the following day.