Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare Casa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montana committee hears debate over bill to expand who can serve as court-appointed special advocates
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony on Senate Bill 464, which would broaden who may serve as a court-appointed special advocate and clarify the role separate from attorney guardians ad litem; proponents said it expands coverage, while attorneys and county officials warned volunteers cannot replace paid GALs, especially in rural counties.
Senators and witnesses spent more than an hour Thursday debating Senate Bill 464, a proposal to modify Montana's statutes that govern court-appointed special advocates (CASA) and to clarify the definition and duties of "special advocates." Sponsor remarks framed the bill as an effort to "strengthen CASA" and to "expand and clarify" who may serve as a court-appointed special advocate.
Proponents, including April Barnings of the Montana CASA GAL Association and Kyla Hailstone of the Montana Family Court Awareness Project, said the bill codifies standards already required by National CASA and would expand the pool of qualified volunteer advocates in parts of the state where CASA does not have capacity. "We are proponents of this bill as it solidifies and clarifies the role and responsibilities of volunteer court appointed special advocates," Barnings told the committee.
Opponents included county attorneys and veteran guardian-ad-litem attorneys who warned the bill could reduce legal protections for children in dependency and neglect cases. "I stand in opposition of this bill partly because it does take that appointment and that special advocacy away from CASA," Nikki Grossberg, a DPHHS division administrator, told the committee. Heather Webster, Yellowstone County's deputy chief county attorney, said the county currently estimates roughly 600 open dependency-and-neglect cases and that "350 to 400 children" might lack a court-appointed special advocate under present conditions.
Several attorneys said the statute must preserve the distinction between attorneys who represent a child's expressed wishes and guardians ad litem who investigate and make best-interest recommendations. "Removing the term guardian ad litem ... is a detriment to defining what services children will receive," said Judy Williams, a child-welfare law specialist.
Committee members probed practical questions about recruitment, training, confidentiality and whether volunteers would be expected to prepare reports on complex medical matters. Proponents said volunteers would collect and report factual information from professionals but would not make medical evaluations or give professional opinions.
Sponsor closing remarks reiterated that SB 464 does not eliminate attorney guardians ad litem, and that an amendment before the committee was intended to address fiscal and implementation concerns. The hearing closed without a committee vote; the bill will return to the committee for further consideration.
The committee is expected to follow up on training, supervision and fiscal details in later work sessions or amendments.
