Active Efforts under ICWA and Termination of Parental Rights: Matter of J.T.L.

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Montana’s decision in Matter of J.T.L., 2025 MT 98, clarifies how “active efforts” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) must be demonstrated and reinforces the standard for terminating parental rights when reunification is unlikely. In this case, Mother appealed the Eighth Judicial District Court’s order terminating her rights to her two children, J.T.L. (born 2016) and D.L.L. (born 2018), both enrolled in the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians. The key issues were:

Whether the Department of Public Health and Human Services satisfied ICWA’s “active efforts” requirement when placing the children with non-kin, non-Native foster parents and enrolling one child in a private Christian school;
Whether the District Court abused its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights after she failed to complete her court-ordered treatment plan.

Counsel included Abby Shea for Mother; Austin Knudsen, Cori Losing, Joshua Racki, and Valerie Winfield for the State; and Justice Katherine Bidegaray delivered the opinion on May 13, 2025.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court. It held that:

The Department made the requisite “active efforts” under ICWA by consulting the Little Shell Tribe, searching for kinship or Native placements, involving tribal specialists, and adapting services to the children’s best interests, even though preferred placements were unavailable.
The Department satisfied ICWA’s active-efforts standard before placing J.T.L. in a private Christian school, by conferring with tribal and school personnel, monitoring cultural engagement opportunities, and addressing safety concerns posed by Mother’s relatives.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s rights under § 41-3-609, MCA, concluding that Mother failed to comply with her treatment plan, reunification was unlikely within a reasonable time, and termination was in the children’s best interests by clear and convincing evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt as required by ICWA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re L.D., 2018 MT 60 – clarified abuse‐of‐discretion standard and ICWA protections.
In re D.H., 2001 MT 200 – addressed clear error review of factual findings.
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) – emphasized protecting tribal interests and family stability in ICWA.
In re A.B., 2020 MT 64 – stressed the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs under § 41-3-609.
In re K.L.N., 2021 MT 56 – required proof beyond a reasonable doubt for termination criteria and continued custody damage under 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f).
In re B.Y., 2018 MT 309 – defined “active efforts” per 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) and 25 C.F.R. § 23.2.
In re T.W.F., 2009 MT 207, and In re A.N., 2005 MT 19 – illustrated ICWA placement preferences and cultural consistency.
In re R.J.F., 2019 MT 113 – recognized parent’s duty to engage in services.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) – guided dismissal of Father’s appeal under § 46-8-103(2), MCA.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied two overlapping frameworks: Montana’s child welfare statutes (Title 41, ch. 3, MCA) and federal ICWA (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901–1963).

1. ICWA “Active Efforts”: ICWA demands “affirmative, active, thorough, and timely” steps to prevent the breakup of an Indian family, tailored to cultural conditions. The Court found the Department met this by:

Notifying the Little Shell Tribe upon enrollment in February 2022;
Conducting multiple Seneca searches and tribal outreach for kinship and non-kin ICWA-preferred placements;
Involving tribal ICWA specialists monthly in placement decisions;
Consulting tribal and school officials before enrolling J.T.L. in a private Christian school, monitoring his academic and emotional needs, and addressing safety risks posed by Mother’s relatives;
Encouraging cultural activities, obtaining care packages, and planning ongoing cultural exposure.

Because the Tribe offered no qualified placements and the parents’ kin suggestions posed safety concerns, the Department’s documented diligence dispelled Mother’s challenge.

2. Termination Standard under § 41-3-609, MCA and ICWA: The Court confirmed that termination requires:

Adjudication as youth in need of care;
Failure to comply with an appropriate treatment plan;
Unlikelihood of change in the parent’s condition within a reasonable time;
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that continued custody would cause serious emotional or physical damage;
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of ICWA “active efforts” that were unsuccessful.

Mother’s multiple relapses, untreated mental health issues, inability to secure stable housing, and cessation of visitation established clear and convincing evidence that she would not reunify. The Little Shell Tribe’s expert corroborated the risk of serious harm.

Impact

This decision underscores several lasting principles:

ICWA Compliance: Courts will accept thorough documentary and testimonial evidence of active tribal consultation and diligent search for preferred placements, even if none materialize.
Cultural Safeguards vs. Child Welfare: Placement decisions balancing cultural connection and a child’s emotional/educational needs are evaluated holistically, not by formal school type alone.
Reunification vs. Permanency: Demonstrated failure to complete treatment plans over extended periods strengthens the presumption that termination—rather than guardianship or extended foster care—is in the child’s best interests.
Clarity on Standards: The opinion provides a blueprint for satisfying both Montana statutory criteria and ICWA’s heightened evidentiary demands.

Complex Concepts Simplified

ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act): A federal law to protect the integrity of Native families and tribes by setting higher standards for custody proceedings involving Indian children.
Active Efforts: Proactive, culturally-sensitive services and consultations designed to prevent breakup of an Indian family, as opposed to “reasonable efforts” in state law.
Youth in Need of Care: Montana’s term for children adjudicated dependent or neglected, triggering protective services and potential termination proceedings.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A medium‐high evidentiary standard requiring that the truth of the facts be highly probable.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The highest standard of proof, applied under ICWA for demonstrating active efforts and likely serious damage to the child.
Rebuttable Presumption: Under § 41-3-604(1), MCA, if a child has been in state custody for 15 of the last 22 months, termination is presumed in the child’s best interests unless the parent rebuts it.

Conclusion

Matter of J.T.L. establishes that compliance with ICWA’s “active efforts” can be proven even when preferred Native placements are unavailable, provided the Department documents diligent, culturally-informed outreach and service adaptations. It also reaffirms Montana’s statutory termination framework, emphasizing the interplay between tribal protections and child welfare goals. Going forward, child welfare agencies should meticulously record tribal consultations and service efforts, while courts can confidently apply these standards to balance cultural integrity with children’s safety and permanency needs.