“More Than a Question”: The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies that a Mere Inquiry Is Not a Motion to Transfer under MICWA § 41-3-1310 and Re-confirms the Narrow Scope of Relative Intervention in Indian Child Guardianships

Introduction

The decision in Matter of I.R.S. & M.W.A.H., Youths in Need of Care, 2025 MT 139, addresses four recurring procedural flashpoints in Indian child welfare cases:

What constitutes “representation” at critical stages and when an on-the-record absence of counsel is reversible error.
Whether an unrepresented parent’s question about tribal jurisdiction triggers the mandatory transfer mechanism of Montana’s Indian Child Welfare Act (MICWA), § 41-3-1310, MCA.
The extent to which an extended family member may intervene as a party (as opposed to merely appear and be heard) after In re U.A.C., 2022 MT 230.
How courts determine “good cause” to deviate from the placement preferences mandated by the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and MICWA.

The mother, H.R.A.H., the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and the children’s aunt raised each of these issues after the District Court awarded permanent guardianship of two Northern Cheyenne siblings to a non-Indian foster family. Affirming, the Montana Supreme Court drew bright procedural lines that will shape future practice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, per Justice Bidegaray, affirmed on all four issues:

Right to Counsel – Although mother’s attorney missed the initial adjudicatory hearing, she had previously stipulated to the adjudication, was represented at all later stages, and suffered no prejudice.
Transfer to Tribal Court – Mother’s questions about “how” to transfer did not amount to a “motion” under § 41-3-1310(3), MCA; therefore, no duty arose to initiate the statutory transfer protocol.
Intervention – Aunt withdrew her intervention motion; the issue became moot. In any event, U.A.C. limits intervention to abandonment cases, and ICWA confers an intervention right only on a tribe or “Indian custodian.”
Placement Preferences – Clear and convincing evidence of Aunt’s prior substantiated abuse and lack of current licensure constituted “good cause” to deviate from ICWA/MICWA placement hierarchy in favour of the existing non-Indian foster placement.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court anchored its reasoning in a network of prior Montana and federal decisions:

A.W.S. v. A.W., 2014 MT 322 – Recognised the statutory right to counsel in dependency proceedings and evaluated prejudice from its denial.
In re J.J.L., 2010 MT 4 – Designated adjudication as a “critical stage” requiring counsel.
Depositors Insurance Co. v. Sandidge, 2022 MT 33 – Defined what constitutes a “motion.”
In re U.A.C., 2022 MT 230 – Limited relative intervention under § 41-3-422(9)(b), MCA, to abandonment cases and displaced Rule 24, M.R.Civ.P.
In re P.E.W., 2025 MT 114 – Clarified standards for “good cause” to depart from ICWA placement preferences.
Federal anchors: 25 U.S.C. §§ 1911 & 1915; 25 C.F.R. § 23.132; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989).

By aligning its analysis with these authorities, the Court synthesised—and subtly extended—the existing precedent base. Notably, it elevated U.A.C. from a termination-of-parental-rights context into guardianship practice, foreclosing many relative-intervention arguments that practitioners had continued to raise.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Right to Counsel

Section 41-3-425(1), MCA, grants parents counsel “in all proceedings.” Yet the Court applied a harmless-error gloss: where the parent stipulates to the adjudicatory finding and later participates with counsel, the absence is not prejudicial. The Court distinguished A.W.S.—where the parent actively opposed the proceeding—and reaffirmed that literal absence is not automatically fatal without demonstrable risk of unfair outcome.

b. Inquiry ≠ Motion under § 41-3-1310

MICWA requires a “motion” by parent, custodian, or tribe to compel transfer. Borrowing the civil-procedure definition from Depositors Insurance, the Court held that a motion must be an express request for a ruling—not merely a request for information. Because no motion was made, no statutory duty to notice other parties, assess “good cause,” or await tribal acceptance was triggered. The Court also corrected a common misconception: transfer is never automatic; the tribe must affirmatively accept the case.

c. Intervention by Extended Family

After In re U.A.C., the statutory gateway to intervention (§ 41-3-422(9)(b), MCA) swings open only if “abandonment” is alleged. Non-custodial relatives otherwise fall back on § 41-3-422(9)(a), MCA—the “interested person” status that confers notice and a right to be heard but not party standing. The Aunt’s voluntary withdrawal of her motion mooted the controversy, but the Court’s dicta underscore that her motion would likely have failed anyway because no abandonment count existed.

d. Good Cause to Deviate from Placement Preferences

Applying 25 C.F.R. § 23.132(c)(5) and MICWA § 41-3-1329(8)(c)(v), the Court focused on two elements:

Diligent Search. The Department had canvassed tribal contacts, relatives, databases, and social media to locate placements.
Unsuitability of Aunt. Prior substantiated abuse, ongoing co-residence with the alleged abuser, no updated licensure, and the Tribe’s own ICWA expert’s testimony established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Aunt could not meet the children’s special needs or guarantee safety.

Therefore, “good cause” existed, even though Aunt was the first-tier ICWA-preferred placement. The Court cautioned agencies, however, to continue contemporaneous home studies whenever a relative resurfaces, signalling that the bar is high and fact-specific.

3. Potential Impact

Transfer Motions. Guardians ad litem, caseworkers, and trial judges now have bright-line guidance: a motion must be expressly made on the record. Caseloads will likely see fewer mid-proceeding transfer disputes founded on ambiguous conversations.
Relative Intervention. The decision effectively narrows litigation participation of extended family members, reserving formal party status to abandonment cases or to relatives who fit ICWA’s “Indian custodian” definition. Expect more relatives to request “interested person” status instead.
Counsel Presence. Although not adopting a per-se reversal rule, the Court’s cautionary language will prompt trial judges to ensure counsel’s presence or secure unequivocal waivers before proceeding.
Placement Analyses. The “good cause” discussion reinforces that historical safety concerns can outweigh formal ICWA preference tiers, but agencies must compile current evidence. Future appeals will scrutinise how fresh those inquiries were.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Youth in Need of Care (YINC): A statutory label in Montana signifying that a child is adjudicated dependent and subject to court-ordered services, similar to “dependency” in other jurisdictions.
ICWA vs. MICWA: ICWA is the federal statute that pre-empts state law; MICWA is Montana’s implementation, which can provide equal or greater protection.
Placement Preferences: A hierarchy (extended family, tribal families, other Indian families, etc.) that a state court must follow unless “good cause” is proved.
Good Cause: A high evidentiary threshold (clear and convincing) justified through factors listed in 25 C.F.R. § 23.132—e.g., no suitable home found after diligent search, serious needs of the child, or wishes of an older child.
Intervention vs. Interested Person: “Intervention” makes someone a party with rights to file motions and appeal; an “interested person” receives notice and may address the court but lacks party standing.
Transfer to Tribal Court: Parents, tribes, or Indian custodians can move the state court to hand the case to tribal jurisdiction if the child is domiciled off-reservation; the tribal court must then agree to accept the case.

Conclusion

Matter of I.R.S. & M.W.A.H. is less about the substantive welfare decision—few doubted the children’s need for stability—and more about process. The Montana Supreme Court crystallised four procedural guardrails: (1) counsel’s absence is reversible only with prejudice, (2) only an explicit motion triggers MICWA transfer duties, (3) extended family cannot bypass U.A.C.’s narrow intervention rule absent abandonment or “Indian custodian” status, and (4) “good cause” deviations from ICWA placement preferences survive appellate review where agencies document both diligent search and specific unsuitability. Collectively, these points provide practitioners and lower courts with much-needed clarity in the complex intersection of state child welfare law and federal Indian law—ensuring that procedural rights are neither unduly expanded nor silently eroded.