HJ 26 is a joint resolution directing the Montana Legislative Council to assign an interim or statutory committee to study guardianship and conservatorship issues in the state. The resolution focuses on whether Montana should improve oversight through training, licensing, certification, and auditing of guardians and conservators, and it specifically asks the committee to review existing state resources and compare programs used in other states.
The study is also required to estimate program costs, identify possible funding sources, determine the best administrative home for any future program, and gather input from a broad set of stakeholders, including guardians, conservators, family members, service organizations, judges, and state agencies such as the Department of Public Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice. The final report and any recommendations must be completed before September 15, 2026, and reported to the 70th Legislature.
Impact
HJ 26 does not directly change Montana statutes or create a new regulatory program; instead, it initiates an interim legislative study that could lead to future legislation on guardianship and conservatorship oversight. Its practical effect is to place guardianship administration, training standards, certification, and auditing under legislative review and to gather information that could shape later changes affecting courts, guardians, conservators, vulnerable adults, and state agencies.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been generally supported as a policy study, with strong committee approval in the House and passage through most House stages. The discussion reflected concern that Montana’s current guardianship system may not adequately protect people who need assistance, and the resolution frames the issue as one needing closer oversight and possible reform. However, the Senate floor vote was closely divided, indicating that while many lawmakers supported studying the issue, there was not unanimous agreement on the need for or scope of the resolution.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on whether Montana should move toward more formal oversight requirements such as licensing, certification, and auditing, and whether such a program would impose unnecessary costs or administrative burdens. Supporters emphasized reported problems with untrained or ineffective guardians and conservators and pointed to other states’ audit and training programs as models. Opponents appear to have been more skeptical of expanding state involvement or committing resources before clearer evidence of need and program design, as reflected in the narrow Senate votes.