SB229- Opposition- The Legislature Does Not Understand Social Work Ethics and Practices.

Summary of SB 229

Senate Bill 229 (SB 229) modifies the authority of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) in child abuse and neglect investigations by:

1. Allowing the department to petition the court for temporary investigative authority (TIA) to investigate child abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

2. Limiting the duration of TIA to no more than 90 days.

3. Prohibiting the removal of a child under temporary investigative authority (TIA).

4. Requiring the department to petition the court for emergency protective services if removal is necessary.

   
   

   Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA) and Child Removal

   Current Law: Under existing Montana law, the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) can seek Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA) to investigate child abuse or neglect and, if necessary, remove a child during the investigation if they are in immediate danger.

   SB 229 Change: Prohibits DPHHS from removing a child under TIA, even if the child is in immediate danger. Instead, the department must file a separate petition for emergency protective services.

   Effect: This change makes the system worse by delaying intervention in cases where immediate harm is suspected.Currently, child protection professionals can remove a child when there is clear evidence of imminent danger. SB 229 forces an additional legal step that could take hours or days, during which a child may continue to experience abuse. While it aims to prevent unnecessary removals, it creates a higher threshold for intervention that could lead to tragic consequences in cases where children need urgent protection.

   90-Day Limit on Temporary Investigative Authority

   Current Law: TIA does not have a strict time limit but is subject to judicial review and extensions when necessary, allowing investigators the time they need to fully assess complex cases of abuse, neglect, or coercive control.

   SB 229 Change: Imposes a hard 90-day limit on TIA, after which the investigation must conclude, regardless of whether the case is resolved.

   Effect: This change also makes the system worse, particularly for complex cases of abuse. Psychological abuse, coercive control, and sexual abuse often require longer investigations to gather sufficient evidence. A strict 90-day deadline pressures child welfare agencies to either close cases prematurely—potentially leaving children in unsafe environments—or rush legal action without enough supporting evidence. Child protection experts recommend flexibility based on case complexity rather than arbitrary deadlines.

   While SB 229 claims to improve judicial oversight and prevent unnecessary government overreach, it actually creates dangerous legal obstacles that delay intervention in high-risk situations. The bill prioritizes parental rights at the expense of child safety, making it harder for social workers and law enforcement to act swiftly in cases of abuse and neglect. Instead of improving the system, SB 229 weakens child protection efforts and increases the likelihood that children remain in dangerous situations longer than necessary.

   
   
   
   

The Prohibition on Child Removal Under Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA)

Under current Montana law, DPHHS can seek temporary investigative authority (TIA) from a court to investigate reports of child abuse or neglect and, in urgent cases, remove a child for their safety during the investigation.

What SB 229 Changes:

• Prevents DPHHS from removing a child under TIA, even if the child is in immediate danger unless the department separately petitions for emergency protective services under 41-3-427.

Potential Benefit:

• Ensures stronger judicial oversight, preventing unnecessary child removals based on limited evidence or misinterpretation.

• Protects parental rights from overreach by child protective services (CPS).

Potential Harm:

• Delays intervention in dangerous situations where a child is at risk but does not meet the immediate removal provisions of 41-3-301 (which typically applies to severe physical abuse or life-threatening situations).

• Creates a legal barrier that could prevent children from being protected from abuse or neglect in a timely manner.

• Increases the risk of serious harm to children in cases where an urgent, temporary removal could have prevented ongoing abuse.

 Best Practices in Child Protection:

• National child welfare standards recommend allowing temporary removals in high-risk cases where further investigation is needed but immediate harm is likely (U.S. Administration for Children & Families).

• Delays in protective action have been linked to increased injuries and fatalities among children in abusive households (National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 2022).

Limiting Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA) to 90 Days

What SB 229 Changes:

• TIA cannot exceed 90 days, ensuring investigations remain time-limited and do not extend indefinitely.

Potential Benefit:

• Prevents unnecessary prolonged investigations that infringe on parental rights.

• Ensures courts review cases within a defined period, improving accountability in the child welfare system.

 Potential Harm:

• Some complex abuse cases (especially psychological or sexual abuse) may require longer investigative timelines, and this restriction could lead to rushed or incomplete investigations.

• If DPHHS is forced to conclude an investigation within 90 days, some cases may be closed prematurely, potentially leaving children in unsafe conditions.

 Best Practices:

• The American Bar Association (ABA) and child welfare experts recommend flexible investigative timelines, allowing extensions for cases requiring in-depth assessments.

• 90-day limits may be arbitrary in complex cases, particularly those involving subtle signs of neglect, long-term psychological abuse, or coercive control dynamics.

SB 229 suggests changes to child protection investigations that reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of child welfare best practices, social work principles, and trauma-informed intervention strategies. 

The bill's modifications—particularly the prohibition on child removal under Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA) and the rigid 90-day investigative timeline—indicate that the drafters may not have consulted professionals in child protection, psychology, or social work. 

The changes reflect biases favoring parental rights over child welfare and overlook the complexities of abuse investigations, particularly in cases involving psychological manipulation, coercion, and neglect.

Indicators of an Education Gap and Bias

1. Failure to Acknowledge Child Development and Trauma Science

   • Limiting the investigative period to 90 days fails to account for the time required to build trust with child victims, particularly in cases of sexual or psychological abuse where children may be fearful or coerced into silence.

   • National best practices emphasize flexibility in investigation length to ensure child safety rather than arbitrary deadlines.

   • The bill assumes abuse cases fit a rigid timeline, ignoring the fact that child victims often delay disclosure due to fear, shame, or manipulation by abusers.

   • SB 229 appears to prioritize keeping children with their parents by prohibiting child removal under Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA) and requiring a separate court petition for emergency protective services. 

   • This framework is framed as a safeguard against unnecessary state intervention, ensuring that children are not removed from their homes without clear and immediate evidence of harm. 

   • By emphasizing judicial oversight and limiting investigative timelines, the bill seemingly aims to protect parental rights and prevent wrongful separations, particularly in cases where allegations of abuse or neglect are unsubstantiated or arise from misunderstandings.

   • However, while this approach may prevent unnecessary removals, it also creates barriers to swift intervention in cases where harm is not yet fully documented but remains a real and immediate risk, particularly in situations involving coercive control, psychological abuse, or neglect that may take longer to uncover.

2. Misunderstanding of Social Work and Investigative Processes

   • The bill prohibits child removal under TIA unless a separate emergency protective services petition is filed.

   • This requirement disregards the role of frontline child protection workers in assessing immediate danger and places additional legal hurdles in front of swift protective actions.

   • The assumption that judicial oversight is the sole safeguard against wrongful removal overlooks existing professional training, ethical standards, and multi-disciplinary team approaches used in CPS investigations.

3. Bias Toward Parental Rights Over Child Safety

   • The bill’s language suggests a priority on preventing "overreach" by CPS rather than focusing on child safety.

   • While protecting parental rights is important, the bill does not acknowledge the reality that many abuse cases involve coercive control, where legal delays provide abusers more time to manipulate children and cover up evidence.

   • Best practices in child welfare stress a balance between due process for parents and immediate safety measures for children—this bill disrupts that balance in favor of the former.

4. Ignorance of Multidisciplinary Best Practices in Child Protection

   • National standards encourage collaborative investigations involving social workers, medical professionals, and law enforcement to ensure comprehensive assessments.

   • The bill’s approach reflects a legalistic rather than a holistic understanding of child protection, suggesting a lack of input from professionals experienced in handling complex abuse cases.

   • Limiting investigative authority without corresponding provisions for professional judgment suggests a lack of trust in trained child welfare professionals, reinforcing a misunderstanding of their expertise.

5. This Bill reflects a larger strategy in authoritarian frameworks, where professionals—whether in healthcare, education, or child welfare—are stripped of decision-making authority and forced to adhere to bureaucratic hurdles that delay action.

   • Fascist and authoritarian movements often seek to replace expert-based decision-making with political control, allowing ideology rather than professional knowledge to dictate policies.

   • The bill's rigid legal constraints ignore social work best practices and professional discretion, paving the way for external political forces to dictate child welfare policies.

6. Authoritarian movements frequently push for "parental rights" as a means of dismantling safeguards that protect children from abuse, indoctrination, and neglect. By prohibiting the immediate removal of children under Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA), SB 229:

   • Creates unnecessary barriers to intervention, ensuring that children remain in potentially dangerous situations longer than necessary.

   • Encourages a shift toward parental supremacy over a child's well-being, a key component of fascist ideology that seeks to control the next generation's beliefs and behaviors.

   • Aligns with radical groups that wish dismantle federal child protection standards, leaving children more vulnerable to abuse and ideological control under the guise of "limiting government overreach."

7. Creating Unnecessary Fears of Institutions

   • creating instability within public services to justify further authoritarian intervention. 

   • Overloading the court system with additional petitions, delaying necessary protective actions and creating bureaucratic chaos.

   • Forcing child welfare agencies to function under impractical time constraints, setting them up for failure and fueling public distrust in the system.

   • Fostering fear among social workers, who may hesitate to act out of concern for legal repercussions, ultimately making the system less effective.

   • overburdening agencies with impossible legal constraints, rendering them ineffective and making them easier to replace with ideologically driven alternatives.

8. State Control over the Individual removing free choice

   • initially seems like a decentralization of government authority, but in reality, it shifts power from trained professionals to courts and lawmakers, reinforcing state control over personal autonomy.

   • By limiting the ability of social workers to act, the bill places child welfare decisions into the hands of judicial and political entities that may be ideologically biased.

   • This aligns with historical fascist strategies that dismantle independent decision-making in favor of state-control extremist groups efforts to dismantle systems that protect vulnerable populations, thereby consolidating power in select political and religious groups.

The changes proposed in SB 229 indicate a misunderstanding of best practices in social work, mental health, and child protection investigations. 

The bill reflects a legalistic bias that prioritizes parental rights over child safety while disregarding the complexities of trauma, disclosure delays, and investigative best practices. It suggests that the bill’s drafters lacked consultation with professionals in child protection, resulting in provisions that could ultimately put vulnerable children at greater risk. 

This bill weakens public trust in government institutions, making it easier to justify authoritarian takeovers. It will enable the centralization of control over families and children, reinforcing parental supremacy at the cost of child safety. By creating fear and hesitation among professionals, it will ensure that services designed to protect individuals become ineffective, further rationalizing state intervention based on ideology rather than expertise.

And finally, SB 229 directly undermines the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by imposing rigid legal barriers that disproportionately impact Native American children and families. ICWA was established to prevent the unwarranted removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities, ensuring that child welfare cases involving Native children prioritize tribal sovereignty, cultural preservation, and placement within Native communities. 

By prohibiting the removal of children under Temporary Investigative Authority (TIA) without an additional emergency petition, SB 229 delays necessary interventions in cases of abuse or neglect, increasing the risk that Indigenous children remain in unsafe environments.

 Additionally, the bill’s arbitrary 90-day investigative limit fails to account for the complex, multi-jurisdictional nature of ICWA cases, where tribal involvement is legally required but may take longer than the imposed timeframe.

Furthermore, SB 229 disrupts ICWA’s core protections by shifting power away from child welfare professionals—who are trained in culturally competent assessments—to a rigid court process that may not fully consider tribal input. 

This legal bottleneck risks violating ICWA’s mandates by reducing the flexibility needed to work collaboratively with tribal governments and extended Native families. 

In effect, SB 229 weakens the ability of ICWA to function as intended, further eroding tribal sovereignty and increasing the likelihood that Indigenous children are either left in dangerous situations or subject to delayed and culturally inappropriate interventions.

The Montana Constitution explicitly acknowledges and upholds Indigenous sovereignty, reflecting the state's unique legal and historical relationship with tribal nations. Article X, Section 1(2) affirms the state’s commitment to the recognition of distinct and separate Indigenous cultures, stating that "the state recognizes the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indians and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural integrity." 

Additionally, Article II, Section 35 provides for the constitutional recognition of tribal sovereignty, reinforcing the inherent rights of Montana’s tribal nations to self-governance and jurisdiction over matters impacting their communities. 

These provisions align with federal laws like the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by ensuring that state policies do not infringe upon Indigenous autonomy, making bills like SB 229— which creates legal barriers to tribal input in child welfare cases— a direct violation of Montana’s constitutional commitment to tribal sovereignty and Indigenous rights.