The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision granting guardianship of three children to the Department of Public Health and Human Services, rejecting a mother's appeal that challenged the state's efforts at family reunification and the legal standards applied in the case.
In a decision issued December 29, Justice Beth Baker delivered the court's opinion in *In the Matter of I.D., T.D., and L.D.*, case number 2025 MT 299. The case originated from proceedings in the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District in Cascade County, where Judge John A. Kutzman presided over the initial guardianship petition.
The case began in June 2021 when the mother, identified as J.F., and father Z.D. brought their one-month-old son T.D. to the emergency room after observing that the infant was not moving his left arm and appeared to be in pain. Medical examination revealed that T.D. had suffered a distal humeral fracture, an injury that medical experts indicated generally occurs when an arm is pushed, pulled, or turned with significant force.
This medical finding triggered an investigation by the Department of Public Health and Human Services into the family's circumstances. The department ultimately filed petitions for guardianship of three children: I.D., T.D., and L.D., all of whom were classified as Youths in Need of Care under Montana law.
The mother challenged the district court's guardianship order on two primary grounds. First, she argued that the court erred in finding that the Department had made reasonable efforts to reunite the family and that further reunification efforts would likely be unproductive. This argument goes to the heart of child welfare law's preference for preserving family units whenever possible while ensuring child safety.
Second, the mother contended that the district court applied an incorrect burden of proof and failed to properly determine that she was an unfit parent before ordering guardianship. This challenge raises important questions about the legal standards courts must apply when determining whether to remove children from parental custody.
Under Montana law, the state must demonstrate that it has made reasonable efforts toward family reunification before seeking permanent guardianship of children. These efforts typically include providing services such as parenting classes, counseling, substance abuse treatment, or other interventions designed to address the conditions that led to state intervention.
The burden of proof in parental fitness determinations is also carefully prescribed by law. Courts must apply specific evidentiary standards when determining whether parents have demonstrated the ability to safely care for their children or whether continued parental custody would pose risks to child welfare.
The case was handled by Laura Reed, an attorney from Missoula, who represented the mother on appeal. The state was represented by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office, with Assistant Attorney General Christine Hutchison handling the matter alongside Cascade County Attorney Joshua A. Racki and Deputy County Attorney Valerie Winfield.
The appeal was submitted on briefs on November 13, 2025, meaning the parties presented their arguments in written form rather than through oral argument before the Supreme Court. This procedural approach is common in cases where the legal issues are well-developed in the written record.
The Montana Supreme Court's affirmance of the district court's decision means that the Department of Public Health and Human Services will retain guardianship of the three children. This outcome reflects the court's determination that the lower court properly applied legal standards for both reasonable reunification efforts and parental fitness.
Child welfare cases involving Youths in Need of Care represent some of the most sensitive matters in the legal system, as they balance fundamental parental rights against the state's obligation to protect vulnerable children. Montana, like other states, has established comprehensive legal frameworks designed to ensure that children receive necessary protection while preserving family relationships whenever safely possible.
The case highlights the complex legal and factual determinations that courts must make in child protection proceedings. These cases typically involve extensive evidence regarding family circumstances, parental capacity, available services, and child safety concerns.
The Montana Supreme Court's decision in this matter provides guidance for lower courts handling similar child welfare cases throughout the state. The ruling clarifies the application of legal standards for reasonable efforts and parental fitness determinations in guardianship proceedings.
For the family involved, the Supreme Court's affirmance represents the conclusion of their appellate challenge to the state's guardianship of their children. The decision upholds the district court's determination that guardianship by the Department of Public Health and Human Services serves the children's best interests under the circumstances of this case.