Judge says Eureka ranch for troubled foreign kids needs license

2013-02-06T21:00:00Z 2013-03-28T14:46:24Z Judge says Eureka ranch for troubled foreign kids needs licenseBy TRISTAN SCOTT of the Missoulian
February 06, 2013 9:00 pm  • 

The Ranch for Kids Project, an unlicensed rural boarding school for troubled children adopted abroad, was dealt a blow this week when a Libby judge ruled that the facility is not exempt from state fees and oversight because it does not qualify as a church ministry.

The ruling is in response to a lawsuit by a Montana Department of Labor and Industry board, which argued that the Eureka facility has been sidestepping state licensing requirements through its designation as an “adjunct ministry.”

“The exemption,” state attorney Mary Tapper wrote in the lawsuit, should “apply to a program having a bona fide relationship with a church, not a program seeking a loophole to circumvent the board’s licensing requirements.”

The ranch, designed for troubled adopted children who suffer from fetal alcohol spectrum disorders – many of them from Russia – was one of the first programs licensed by the state Department of Labor and Industry’s Board of Private Alternative Adolescent Residential or Outdoor Programs.

In 2010, Ranch for Kids owner Joyce Sterkel began having discussions with a local church about partnering as an “adjunct ministry,” which exempts the facility from state oversight and what she says are “prohibitive fees.” Sterkel has been operating without a license ever since.

On Tuesday, Lincoln County District Judge Jim Wheelis sided with the state board, agreeing that neither the Ranch for Kids nor the religious organization it partnered with qualifies as a real church or ministry. He asked Tapper to draft an order detailing the steps the Ranch for Kids must take in order to become licensed, which she hoped to complete by next week.

Tapper said it is not the state’s intent to shut the ranch down, but that the facility’s future is contingent on full compliance.

“Ideally, what we would like to see is that they comply with the licensing requirements,” Tapper said. “Obviously the judge agreed with us that they do need to be licensed, but for 2 1/2 years they have refused to comply and they haven’t paid any fees.”

Sterkel said she was disappointed by the court’s decision, but not surprised.

“It is unfortunate, but I think he had his mind made up ahead of time,” she said. “We are taking it under advisement, talking to legal counsel, and then we will make a decision with regard to the direction we are going to go.”

The ranch will appeal the decision, take the necessary steps toward licensure or close its doors, Sterkel said.

“We will decide which of those three options will best serve our clients and the staff, but I am confident we will find a way to stay open,” she said.


In October 2011, after the state board sent Sterkel a cease-and-desist order, she and Jeremy Evjene, a ranch employee and the head of the Epicenter International Missions Ministry, signed a memorandum of understanding designating the ranch an “adjunct ministry,” and exempting it from the state’s authority.

Founded in 2004 by Evjene, Epicenter International Missions Ministry has no building, congregation or ordained clergy, even though Evjene, first hired at the Ranch for Kids as a construction worker, serves as a counselor and youth pastor. He has performed baptisms and has led Bible studies, youth group counseling sessions and church services.

In court briefs, Tapper wrote that Epicenter International Missions Ministry “is not a church, but the evangelical philosophy of a young man with no degree or formal theological training.”

Ranch for Kids attorney J. Tiffin Hall said Epicenter International Missions Ministry has been incorporated as a not-for-profit ministry in the state of Montana since June 2006, and all of the parents who send their children there are aware of the affiliation.

At the hearing, he submitted numerous letters of support from parents of children in the program.

Tapper said she has yet to determine the parameters of the order, but that licensure will likely require the resolution of a separate case brought by the Department of Labor’s Building Codes Bureau, which alleges the Ranch for Kids violated building and electrical codes by refusing state property inspections. Ranch officials contended that they were not subject to those inspections as a private facility, but have since taken steps toward meeting those state requirements. A March 4 compliance hearing will be held before Judge Wheelis.


Sterkel, who has been involved with international adoptions for more than two decades, said the Ranch for Kids is a critical resource for families struggling to manage adopted children who exhibit behavioral problems that are the result of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, as well as the effects of living in difficult conditions in orphanages abroad.

A low-cost alternative to other respite care facilities, parents pay $3,500 per month to send their children to the ranch. Some require weeks or months, others years.

Sterkel said she is “absolutely open to having oversight,” but feels the state has been heavy-handed in its efforts to seek compliance.

The Ranch for Kids received international attention last summer when Russian children’s ombudsman Pavel Astakhov and human rights envoy Konstantin Dolgov arrived at its gates with a camera crew in tow and demanded access.

The government officials demanded to check on the adopted children from Russia in Sterkel’s care, but nobody came to meet them at the gate. Sterkel said she earlier denied the crew access, believing their arrival to be a publicity stunt designed to highlight problems with the bilateral adoption agreement and keep it in the international spotlight.

Twenty-five to 30 children between the ages of 5 and 18 live on the ranch in Eureka. About 10 are Russian, while the others come from Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia and other countries.

Reporter Tristan Scott can be reached at (406) 531-9745 or at

Copyright 2015 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(6) Comments

    Report Abuse
    COMMON SENSE - February 07, 2013 5:23 pm
    Any organization that is responsible for the care of children should be open to some kind of oversight in the best interest of the children. That being said, if a bunch of Russian government officials and a Russian camera crew showed up outside my property, my first call would be to the local sheriff demanding their arrest, followed by a strongly worded letter of complaint addressed to the nearest Russian embassy. This is a sovereign nation, we do not respond to the 'demands' of any Russian government blowhards who think they can push U.S. citizens around on our own territory!
  2. familytruckster
    Report Abuse
    familytruckster - February 07, 2013 10:05 am
    Startingover- you hit the nail on the head. Why not get licensed? If they are in fact doing what they claim, it will only stand to improve their reputation and bolster enrollment, ultimately supporting their "mission."
  3. DMarie
    Report Abuse
    DMarie - February 07, 2013 8:02 am
    quit bringing in these children. there are enough AMERICAN children that could use this help instead.
  4. Roger
    Report Abuse
    Roger - February 07, 2013 7:31 am
    Here's a suggestion - pass legislation outlawing the bringing of adopted foreign children into the USA. We don't need these defective problem children - there's plenty of kids available for adoption in this country, I believe.
  5. startingover
    Report Abuse
    startingover - February 07, 2013 6:59 am
    One would think that a place like this would be all about transparency. Denying access to government officials who were there to check the welfare of the children definitely looks suspicious. I also wonder if this is a non-profit. With 25 kids there they are charging 85,000 per month in total fees. So exactly how much of that would they have to pay to be licensed?
  6. Johget
    Report Abuse
    Johget - February 06, 2013 1:38 pm
    All the state cares about is the fees.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian ( may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Search our events calendar