Representative Lucas Schubert opened House Bill 730, saying the measure would declare that "it is not in the best interest of children for a parent to support their child's gender transition" and would make parental encouragement of transition a factor a court "must consider" when applying the best-interest standard in custody cases.

Proponents framed the bill as a child-protection measure. Sponsor Schubert said many children, he claimed, will resolve gender dysphoria without irreversible medical or surgical interventions and that parents should refrain from encouraging permanent changes. Jerry O'Neil and Russell Sias testified in support; they described moral and religious objections and urged the committee to protect minors. Other proponents called the practice a form of child abuse.

Opponents included a long roster of family-law practitioners, mental-health professionals and civil-rights groups. Robin Turner of Legal Voice, who said she spent over a decade in family law, argued the bill would distort the best-interest standard and could force courts to equate parental support for a child's gender identity with physical abuse. "If a parent encourages or actively supports the child's transitioning, it has to be considered as not in the child's best interest," she said, warning that the bill would insert mandatory findings into an ordinarily flexible standard.

Family-law practitioners testified the bill is unworkable without a clear definition of "gender transition." Custody attorneys warned the provision could be weaponized in contested parenting cases: Corbin Howard, a longtime family lawyer, said mandatory findings would invite threats and manipulation in hotly contested proceedings. Medical and advocacy witnesses, including clinicians, detransitioners, and representatives from Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana and the Montana AAP, also weighed in; many opponents described medical consensus in favor of individualized care and warned the bill would risk harming children by removing access to care and splitting families.

Committee members pressed for definitional clarity. Representative Clacken asked for statutory citations referenced by opponents earlier in the day. Sponsor Schubert said definitional details could be addressed on amendment, but he argued the bill's core purpose is to allow courts to consider parental encouragement or support for transition when assessing custody.

Ending: The hearing drew a long line of speakers on both sides and closed with the sponsor asking the committee to give the bill a do pass; no committee vote on HB 730 is recorded in the transcript.