Glasgow Couple Has Requests Denied By State Supreme Court

Todd Kolstad and Krista Cummins-Kolstad, of Glasgow, filed an emergency petition on Feb. 6 with the Montana Supreme Court asking the highest Court to overturn the 17th Judicial District Court Judge Yvonne Laird’s gag-order and for the Court to take supervisory control of the case involving their child. During this hearing, the Supreme Court ended up not overturning the order and also declined to take control of the case. A week later, the Kolstads again filed the request for the Montana Supreme Court to take supervisory control of the case involving their child, which again the Court denied and dismissed.

According to Court documents, the underlying case is a dependency-neglect matter. The Kolstads admit that on Jan. 18, 2024, they “went public” with details about the case by posting a 17-minute video on social media. The District Court then issued its order, which provides that all parties are forbidden from disclosing any further records or reports, or making any statements or interviews in any social media or news media in any unauthorized manner regarding the youth’s physical or mental health, state of mind, or involvement in the matter. It was further ordered by Judge Laird the parents shall delete any video or other statements that have previously been made from any social media or news media, directly linked to this matter to prevent further dissemination of confidential information. At that time, the Kolstads did not challenge the order.

On Jan. 22, Cummins-Kolstad spoke about the case on a talk-radio program that was broadcast statewide. The next day, in response to a motion for contempt filed by the youth’s attorney, the District Court issued an Order Setting Hearing on Motion for Contempt of Court, scheduling the hearing for Jan. 29, and further ordered both parents to delete any video or other statement they made, or had access to, from social media or new media, “directly linked” to this case, “ to prevent further dissemination of the Youth’s confidential state of mind and mental and physical health care information.”

On Jan. 29, the Court continued the contempt hearing, resetting it for Feb. 21. The court ordered the parties to appear in person and it further ordered that its previous rulings prohibiting the release of information about the case remained in effect. It was also advised the parties that “further dissemination will result in Contempt which may result in jail time and/or fine.”

On Feb. 5, the Kolstads petitioned the Montana Supreme Court for supervisory control over the District Court. The Court denied and dismissed the petition because it failed to include sufficient information to permit a review of the order or orders to which the Kolstads objected. The Court further held that supervisory control was not warranted regarding the upcoming contempt hearing as the petition did not demonstrate any mistake of law or emergency factors as required.

After the Court made their ruling, the following limited statement was issued by the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division through Valey County Attorney Dylan J. Jensen, regarding the accusations leveled by Todd and Krista Kolstad regarding the State of Montana’s involvement with their family.

“The Kolstads have alleged they are victims of government overreach, and that their rights as parents are being violated. On Jan. 19, 2024, in open court, the State of Montana requested it be allowed to dismiss the case involving the Kolstads. Had the motion been granted, Todd Kolstad’s legal rights as a parent would have remained fully intact and the State of Montana would have no more involvement in his relationship with his child. Mr. Kolstad, and his wife, objected to dismissal and requested the State remain involved. Any statement made otherwise is false and inaccurate.”

The Kolstad’s family media representative Mattie Watkins then issued the following statement, “On Jan. 19, the Kolstads were told that they could maintain a relationship with their daughter if they agreed to send her to her biological mother in Canada. Their public defender advised they request CFS to investigate the mother knowing they would be forced to, on record, deem her as unfit due to her documented history of abuse.

Jensen also offered them reunification with their daughter if they would go to marriage counseling and affirm her gender identity. These conditions were offered to them again on January 26th. The Kolstads would never accept a dismissal that fell short of them being permanently reunited with their daughter in Montana.

The question is, why is Dylan Jensen intentionally misrepresenting events to the media? The answer is to smear the Kolstads while hiding behind a gag order.

We keep hearing kids aren’t removed from their parents’ home for non-affirmation of gender identity but it’s precisely what the Montana government has done.

Mr. Jensen, along with the rest of the Montana government, continue to behave as though the public and the media are simple-minded”

On Feb. 13, a week after their initial petition, the Kolstads filed a second petition for supervisory control, and requested the Court to stay the matter because they believe “they will likely be jailed” by the District Court after the Feb. 21 contempt hearing. When this petition was filed, the District Court had issued no ruling regarding contempt, and according to the Court, the petition the Kolstads filed offered numerous asserts of fact that were untested.

“This court is not a fact finding court. At this juncture, no mistake of law or emergency factors have been demonstrated. The District Court had the jurisdiction to issue the Jan. 18, 2024 Order Enjoining Disclosure of Confidential Information, and its ruling must be respected unless and until ‘its decision is reversed for error by orderly review[.]’,” stated Court documents. “As noted above, the District Court’s order is based upon statute...If T.K. And K.K. object to the injunction order itself, they may appeal it, but they cannot attempt a collateral attack upon that order by initiating an original proceeding that seeks to foreclose the District Court’s ability to enforce its order by contempt, particularly on untested assertions.”

It was then ordered that the petition for writ of supervisory control be denied and dismissed.

The Kolstads are set to appear in District Court on Feb. 21 for the contempt hearing.