The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a district court's child welfare decision that approved adoption as the permanency plan for a youth in need of care while denying the maternal grandmother's placement request, according to a ruling issued Feb. 10.
Justice Katherine Bidegaray delivered the court's opinion in *Matter of M.L.O.-L.*, affirming the Sept. 30, 2025 order from the Fourth Judicial District Court in Missoula County. The case centered on whether the district court abused its discretion in its placement and permanency planning decisions.
M.L.O.-L., born in June 2018, was removed from her mother's care in February 2023 along with two siblings by the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services due to concerns of neglect and abuse. The department initially placed all three children with their maternal grandmother, identified as W.R., in what the court termed a "kinship placement."
The grandmother, represented by attorney Marybeth M. Sampsel of Measure Law PC in Kalispell, served as the appellant in the case. She challenged the district court's decision to deny her request for permanent placement of M.L.O.-L. while approving adoption as the child's permanency plan.
The state was represented by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office, with Assistant Attorney General Katie F. Schulz handling the case. Missoula County Attorney Matthew C. Jennings and Deputy County Attorney Julie Brown also represented the appellee position.
The case was presided over at the district court level by Honorable Jason T. Marks of the Fourth Judicial District Court. The Supreme Court case was submitted on briefs Jan. 28, 2026, and decided Feb. 10, 2026, as case number DA 25-0585.
According to the court record, complications arose almost immediately after the children's initial placement with their grandmother. The opinion notes that "almost immediately after the placement, the oldest sibling" experienced issues, though the full details of these complications were not elaborated in the available court documentation.
The case represents the ongoing challenges within Montana's child welfare system regarding placement preferences and permanency planning for youth in need of care. Montana law, like that in many states, generally favors placement with relatives when possible, but courts must ultimately determine what serves the best interests of the child.
The permanency planning process in child welfare cases involves developing long-term plans for children who cannot safely return to their parents. Options typically include reunification with parents, placement with relatives, adoption, or other permanent arrangements. Courts must weigh numerous factors including the child's safety, stability, and overall well-being.
Kinship placements, where children are placed with relatives such as grandparents, aunts, or uncles, are often preferred over foster care with non-relatives because they can help maintain family connections and cultural continuity. However, these placements must still meet safety and stability requirements.
The Montana Supreme Court's affirmation of the lower court's decision suggests that the district court properly exercised its discretion in weighing the various factors involved in the case. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that adoption, rather than placement with the grandmother, served M.L.O.-L.'s best interests.
This case adds to the body of Montana law governing child welfare proceedings and permanency planning decisions. It demonstrates the courts' careful consideration of placement options and the complex factors that must be weighed when determining permanent arrangements for children in the state's care.
The decision also reflects the ongoing tension in child welfare cases between maintaining family connections through kinship care and ensuring that children receive the most stable and appropriate permanent arrangements possible. While relatives often seek placement of children removed from parental care, courts must evaluate whether such placements truly serve the child's best interests.
The case highlights the importance of thorough evaluation in permanency planning decisions and the deference appellate courts give to trial courts' discretionary determinations in child welfare matters. The Montana Supreme Court's affirmation suggests that the district court properly considered all relevant evidence and factors in reaching its decision.
For families involved in Montana's child welfare system, this case underscores the complexity of placement decisions and the careful legal analysis that courts undertake when determining permanent arrangements for youth in need of care. The ruling reinforces that while family preservation and kinship care are important considerations, they must be balanced against the overriding requirement to ensure children's safety and well-being.