Montana’s guardianship statutes reflect a best-practice approach to protecting vulnerable adults and those with disabilities while promoting their rights, autonomy, and independence. Reform efforts aimed at reducing reliance on guardianship in favor of less restrictive alternatives have gained traction over the past several decades, and an emphasis on person-centered planning has emerged. Many states, including Montana, have revised their laws to reflect these priorities, and today, most states require courts to assess whether a guardianship is truly necessary or if the individual’s needs can be met through less restrictive means.
Montana law allows guardianships “only as is necessary to promote and protect the well-being of the person. The guardianship must be designed to encourage the development of maximum self-reliance and independence in the person and may be ordered only to the extent that the person’s actual mental and physical limitations require it.” At the heart of Montana’s legal framework are two key concepts: supported decision-making and the less restrictive alternative standard.
Under Montana law, supported decision making is defined as a process that allows individuals to make their own decisions with the help of trusted supporters. These supporters—who may be family, friends, or professionals—assist by helping the person understand, evaluate, and communicate decisions without taking decision-making authority away from them. This approach recognizes that, with the right support, many people are capable of making informed choices about their lives.
The less restrictive alternative standard requires that any intervention in a person’s life be limited to what is absolutely necessary to meet their needs. This includes considering alternatives such as powers of attorney, representative payees, technological assistance, or supported decision-making agreements before moving toward a guardianship. These alternatives often promote self-reliance, preserve the protected person’s rights, and provide individualized support tailored to the person’s abilities and circumstances. Unlike a guardianship, these options are usually consensual and reversible, reinforcing the broader shift toward self-direction and person-centered support in legal decision-making.
If these less-restrictive alternatives fail to safeguard the vulnerable adult’s safety and well-being, and a guardianship is in fact necessary, Montana law still reinforces this standard by requiring an explanation in the guardianship petition of what other less-restrictive alternatives have been attempted. Any individual or entity seeking to establish guardianship must describe in the petition what less restrictive alternatives have been tried and/or explain why they are insufficient. This requirement ensures that guardianships are pursued only as a last resort, when no other alternatives adequately protect the individual. It emphasizes that guardianship should not be a default decision. Instead, a protective plan should be customized and limited, respecting the individual’s strengths and preferences, while also ensuring the person’s safety and well-being, if at all possible.
By requiring the exploration of less restrictive alternatives and encouraging supported decision-making, Montana law affirms that independence and dignity should guide any intervention into the lives of vulnerable adults. This approach promotes person-centered planning and ensures that guardianship is truly a protective, not punitive, measure.
If you have questions about how you might best protect yourself or an individual in your life through a guardianship or other less-restrictive alternative, contact one of our attorneys today.