The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the termination of parental rights for a father in a child welfare case involving two young children, rejecting his appeal in a decision issued February 10, 2026.
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the court's opinion in the case involving J.A. (Father) and his children S.A. and J.P., who were designated as youths in need of care. The father had appealed the January 2, 2025 order from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Cascade County that terminated his parental rights to both children.
The case originated from serious child welfare concerns that first brought the family to the attention of social services on the Rocky Boy Reservation in June 2018. According to court records, Father was keeping his daughter S.A. from her mother H.P., using and selling methamphetamine, and committing domestic violence against the mother. The situation continued to deteriorate, and by June 2019, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services became involved when the couple's second child, J.P., was born.
S.A. was born in 2018, making her approximately seven years old at the time of the Supreme Court's decision, while J.P. was born in 2019, making him about six years old. The children were designated as youths in need of care under Montana law, which provides a legal framework for protecting children who cannot safely remain in their homes due to abuse, neglect, or other dangerous circumstances.
The district court proceedings were overseen by Honorable Elizabeth A. Best in Cascade County. The original child welfare cases were filed under cause numbers BDN-19-272 and BDN-19-273, indicating the cases were initiated in 2019 when the younger child was born and the family's situation apparently reached a crisis point requiring court intervention.
On appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, Father raised two primary arguments challenging the termination of his parental rights. First, he contended that the district court abused its discretion when it decided to terminate his parental rights to both children. This argument typically involves challenging whether the court properly applied the legal standards for termination, which generally require clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the children's best interests and that less drastic alternatives would not adequately protect the children.
Second, Father attempted to assert claims on behalf of tribal entities related to what he characterized as a general tribal preference for guardianships over terminations. This argument appears to relate to federal and state laws that recognize tribal sovereignty and provide special protections for Native American children in child welfare proceedings, including preferences for keeping children within their tribal communities when possible.
The Montana Supreme Court addressed both issues raised by Father but ultimately rejected his arguments. In a concise ruling, the court stated simply "We affirm," indicating that it found no error in the district court's decision to terminate the father's parental rights.
The case was submitted to the Supreme Court on briefs on September 3, 2025, meaning the parties did not present oral arguments but instead relied on their written submissions to the court. This procedural approach is common in cases where the legal issues are well-established or the factual record is clear.
Representing Father on appeal was Shannon Hathaway from the Hathaway Law Group in Missoula, Montana. The state was represented by multiple attorneys, including Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Assistant Attorney General Katie F. Schulz from Helena, as well as local prosecutors Joshua A. Racki, the Cascade County Attorney, and Deputy County Attorney Valerie Winfield from Great Falls.
The case illustrates the complex intersection of child welfare law, parental rights, and tribal sovereignty issues in Montana. The involvement of the Rocky Boy Reservation in the initial stages of the case suggests that tribal law and federal Indian Child Welfare Act considerations may have played a role in the proceedings, though the Supreme Court ultimately rejected Father's attempt to raise tribal preference arguments.
Termination of parental rights represents the most severe intervention available in child welfare cases, permanently severing the legal relationship between parent and child. Courts typically require clear and convincing evidence that termination is necessary to protect the child's welfare and that reasonable efforts to preserve the family have failed or would be futile.
The timeline of this case spans several years, from the initial 2018 contact with social services through the 2026 Supreme Court decision, reflecting the lengthy process often involved in complex child welfare cases. The fact that the children were very young when the case began and are now school-aged demonstrates the significant portion of their lives that have been affected by these legal proceedings.
With the Supreme Court's affirmation of the termination order, Father's parental rights to both children are now permanently severed, clearing the way for other permanency arrangements such as adoption or long-term guardianship to provide stability for S.A. and J.P.