Judge Laird Dismisses Child Protection Case And Contempt Hearing For Kolstads

A highly public child protection case involving a transgender teenager that has stirred up online conservative outrage, created blowback for Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte and sparked legal challenges at the Montana Supreme Court was dismissed on Feb. 20.

The decision on Feb. 20 to dismiss the case by state district court Judge Yvonne Laird, a copy of which was reviewed by Montana Free Press, comes after the child’s placement earlier this month with their biological mother in Canada over the objection of their father and stepmother, Todd Kolstad and Krista Cummins-Kolstad. MTFP is withholding the teen’s name out of respect for the minor’s privacy.

The order also vacated a Feb. 21 contempt hearing over the Kolstads’ repeated public comments about confidential proceedings in violation of Laird’s orders, bringing immediate Montana state agency involvement with the fraught situation to an apparent end.

“[T]he contempt by the father and the stepmother is undeniable. However, the damage and harm inflicted by their actions cannot now be undone and is therefore moot,” Laird wrote in her Tuesday order. “Given the mootness of the contempt, and the unlikelihood of self-reflection and self-accountability or repentance by either father or stepmother, proceeding to a contempt hearing would be an exercise in judicial futility and most likely bring further negative attention to the Youth.”

In Facebook comments about the latest installment in the case, the Kolstads lamented the placement of their 14-year-old but claimed victory over escaping fines and potential jail time related to the contempt proceedings. The couple also continued to link their battle with state child protection workers to the Gianforte administration, which had previously defended the state’s handling of the case in an online response to critics.

“Given the mootness of the contempt, and the unlikelihood of self-reflection and self-accountability or repentance by either father or stepmother, proceeding to a contempt hearing would be an exercise in judicial futility and most likely bring further negative attention to the Youth.” District Court Judge Yvonne Laird

“The Governor’s corrupt system backed down. We are continuing to fight for all families’ rights and for our [child] to be returned home. We can not as a community allow this overstep of the government to ruin the nuclear family, violate our first amendment rights, and the right to choose our religion,” Cummins-Kolstad wrote Wednesday morning.

While confidential under state law, details and allegations about the Glasgow-based child protection case and related court proceedings shared by the Kolstads have created a public firestorm in recent months. Critics in Montana and nationwide have accused state workers with the Department of Public Health and Human Services of wrongly taking the 14-year-old into custody because the teen’s father and stepmother did not support their child’s transgender identity.

That narrative has been promoted by the Kolstads in several interviews with national and international outlets about the case. But according to court records shared with MTFP over the course of several months, state workers emphasized that the removal hinged on the parents’ resistance to sending their teen to an out-of-state psychiatric facility last August to be treated for suicidal thoughts. The parents feared, the records show, that the minor could access gender-affirming medical care upon leaving Montana’s borders.

As MTFP has previously reported, the Kolstads’ concern was based on an inaccurate understanding that a Montana law barring gender-affirming care for transgender minors was in effect. That law, Senate Bill 99, was not slated to take effect until Oct. 1, a typical effective date for many pieces of legislation passed in the most recent legislative session. The law was temporarily blocked in court in September while litigation over its constitutionality continues.

After spending a month in the Wyoming Behavioral Institute at the recommendations of Glasgow medical staff, the teenager in the case was transferred to a group home in Montana while custody negotiations with the Kolstads continued. There, the Kolstads took issue with the teen being able to “socially transition” by using their chosen name and pronouns and wearing preferred clothing and hairstyles.

Court filings and email correspondence between the Kolstads, state child protection workers, and attorneys on the case show that these fights and other disputes over a state-issued treatment plan for the family derailed the family’s reunification, with the Kolstads claiming they were being forced to accept their child’s gender identity and the state contesting that the parents were being uncooperative.

The state made a motion to dismiss the case in mid-February, weeks after the minor was transferred to the biological mother’s home. In that filing, Valley County Attorney Dylan Jensen reiterated the state’s interests and sought to create more distance between the state health department and the minor’s transgender identity.

“The youth’s gender identity has not, and is not, of any concern to the department. The department was only involved because the youth was deemed to be acutely suicidal and in need of care [the youth] was not receiving. The youth is no longer at risk of self-harm or suicide, and in placing the youth with [their] Mother the emergency situation giving rise to the department involvement has been resolved,” Jensen wrote.

Laird reinforced that stance in her Tuesday order dismissing the case.

“Unfortunately, during the pendency of this matter, the youth’s father and stepmother chose to focus on the youth’s struggle with gender identification rather than addressing the issues in the family home and ensuring a safe and supportive environment for the youth to return to after receiving necessary mental health services to address the youth’s suicidal ideation,” the order stated.

In the weeks leading up to Wednesday’s scheduled contempt hearing, the Kolstads repeatedly appealed to the Montana Supreme Court to override Laird’s order prohibiting them from speaking about private aspects of the case. In those filings, the couple claimed they would be penalized for publicly responding to the Gianforte administration’s comments on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. The state Supreme Court denied and dismissed those appeals, later applying the same treatment to another effort by the Kolstads to stay the Wednesday hearing altogether.

Reached through her court assistant Wednesday, Laird declined to comment on the case. The youth and the biological mother have not replied to requests for comment from MTFP.

Jensen, the county attorney, declined to speak about the specifics of the case Wednesday morning but noted that such heightened attention about any child welfare proceedings, such as what state workers have experienced in recent months, is far out of the ordinary in Montana proceedings.

Asked if he would like to reply to any of the comments the Kolstads have publicly made about the case, Jensen said no, citing a desire to avoid what he described as the couples’ “provocation.”

“Even if I could comment on it, I would resist the impulse to go point for point with them on anything,” he said.