Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 41. MINORS · CHAPTER 3. CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT · Part 4. Abuse or Neglect Proceedings
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-434 (2026)

Stipulations -- Prohibition On Continuances Of Hearings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 41
  3. CHAPTER 3
  4. Part 4
  5. 41-3-434 Stipulations -- prohibition on continuances of hearings

TITLE 41. MINORS

CHAPTER 3. CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Part 4. Abuse or Neglect Proceedings

Stipulations -- Prohibition On Continuances Of Hearings

41-3-434. Stipulations -- prohibition on continuances of hearings. (1) Subject to approval by the court, the parties may stipulate to any of the following:

(a) the child meets the definition of a youth in need of care by the preponderance of the evidence;

(b) a treatment plan, if the child has been adjudicated a youth in need of care;

(c) the disposition; or

(d) extension of the timeframes contained in this chapter, except for the timeframe contained in 41-3-445.

(2) (a) Unless the court determines that good cause or exigent circumstances exist, a hearing scheduled pursuant to this chapter may not be continued. If the court determines that good cause or exigent circumstances necessitate the continuance of a scheduled hearing, the court shall review the reasons for good cause or the exigency and order an appropriate remedy that considers the best interests of the child.

(b) For the purposes of this subsection (2), "exigent circumstances" means:

(i) newly discovered evidence;

(ii) unforeseen personal emergencies; or

(iii) other unforeseen emergencies or disasters.

(c) For purposes of this subsection (2), "good cause" exists when:

(i) a parent is progressing with recommended treatment or other services included in a court-approved treatment plan and would benefit from a reasonable amount of additional time to complete the identified tasks to achieve reunification with the child;

(ii) additional time is necessary to meet the individual needs of a child, provide for the child's physical or emotional health, or to facilitate the child's permanency;

(iii) continuation of a hearing is necessary to satisfy the procedural requirements of due process or effective representation; or

(iv) the parties agree to a continuance.

History: En. Sec. 14, Ch. 281, L. 2001; en. Sec. 32, Ch. 311, L. 2001; amd. Sec. 10, Ch. 504, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 779, L. 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: In re H.T., 2015 MT 41 (Mont. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re H.T., 2015 MT 41 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 5× ““A parent’s valid stipulation under § 41-3-434, MCA, can satisfy the required findings for the adjudication of a youth in need of care even absent an evidentiary hearing.”
In re A.S., 2006 MT 281 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 7× “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. *288 ¶31 The District Court’s Order following the November 2002 hearing stated that S.”
In re M.B., 2004 MT 304 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 4× “First was the Stipulation to Temporary Legal Custody, filed on November *473 13, 2001, which was signed by, among others, both Appellants and their attorney.”
In re B.B., 2006 MT 66 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 6× “Section 41-3-434, MCA (2001), in turn, reads: 41-3-434.”
In re J.M., 2009 MT 332 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 3× “The court also heard evidence from the mother and the children’s grandmother concerning the children’s eligibility for tribal enrollment, including a letter from the tribe indicating that it would intervene on *70 the mother’s behalf.”
In re P.S., 2006 MT 4 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 2× “By definition, to “stipulate” is to “[a]rrange or settle definitely, as an agreement or covenant.”
In the Matter of JC, 2008 MT 127 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 2× “Conversely, it also ignores § 41-3-434(2), MCA, which allows a parent to stipulate to a treatment plan if the child has been adjudicated a YINC.”
In Re As, 2006 MT 281 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 7× “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. ¶ 31 The District Court's Order following the November 2002 hearing stated that S.”
In re J.C., 2008 MT 127 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 2× “Conversely, it also ignores § 41-3-434(2), MCA, which allows a parent to stipulate to a treatment plan if the child has *54 been adjudicated a YINC.”
Matter of Z.N-M., YINC, 2023 MT 202 (Mont. 2023). · cites it 3× “” Section 41-3-102(35), MCA. In addition to adjudication after a hearing, Montana law allows parents to stipulate that their child meets the YINC definition by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Matter of T.H., 2010 MT 176N (Mont. 2010). · cites it 3× “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. A dispositional hearing must be held within 20 days after an adjudicatory order has been entered, unless the petition is stipulated to by the parties.”
Matter of T.H., 2010 MT 176N (Mont. 2010). · cites it 3× “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. A dispositional hearing must be held within 20 days after an adjudicatory order has been entered, unless the petition is stipulated to by the parties.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-434(1) — 11 cases
In re A.S., 2006 MT 281 (Mont. 2006). “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. *288 ¶31 The District Court’s Order following the November 2002 hearing stated that S.”
In re H.T., 2015 MT 41 (Mont. 2015). ““A parent’s valid stipulation under § 41-3-434, MCA, can satisfy the required findings for the adjudication of a youth in need of care even absent an evidentiary hearing.”
In re M.B., 2004 MT 304 (Mont. 2004). “First was the Stipulation to Temporary Legal Custody, filed on November *473 13, 2001, which was signed by, among others, both Appellants and their attorney.”
In Re As, 2006 MT 281 (Mont. 2006). “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. ¶ 31 The District Court's Order following the November 2002 hearing stated that S.”
Matter of Z.N-M., YINC, 2023 MT 202 (Mont. 2023). “” Section 41-3-102(35), MCA. In addition to adjudication after a hearing, Montana law allows parents to stipulate that their child meets the YINC definition by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-434(2) — 4 cases
In the Matter of JC, 2008 MT 127 (Mont. 2008). “Conversely, it also ignores § 41-3-434(2), MCA, which allows a parent to stipulate to a treatment plan if the child has been adjudicated a YINC.”
In re J.C., 2008 MT 127 (Mont. 2008). “Conversely, it also ignores § 41-3-434(2), MCA, which allows a parent to stipulate to a treatment plan if the child has *54 been adjudicated a YINC.”
In re A.S., 2006 MT 281 (Mont. 2006). “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. *288 ¶31 The District Court’s Order following the November 2002 hearing stated that S.”
In Re As, 2006 MT 281 (Mont. 2006). “Section 41-3-434(1), MCA. ¶ 31 The District Court's Order following the November 2002 hearing stated that S.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-434(l) — 1 case
In re J.M., 2009 MT 332 (Mont. 2009). “The court also heard evidence from the mother and the children’s grandmother concerning the children’s eligibility for tribal enrollment, including a letter from the tribe indicating that it would intervene on *70 the mother’s behalf.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.