Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A couple who had lived together in Montana since the mid-1990s had their relationship recognized as a common law marriage. After separating in 2013, the wife petitioned for divorce in 2014. During the dissolution proceedings, both parties exchanged financial information but did not submit final declarations of disclosure as required by Montana law. Following a bench trial, the District Court issued a Final Decree in December 2018, dissolving the marriage, distributing the marital estate, and ordering the husband to pay spousal and child support, as well as the mortgage on the marital home awarded to the wife. Neither party objected at the time to the lack of final disclosure statements.Subsequent litigation focused on the husband’s financial obligations under the Final Decree. The husband sought to modify or suspend his support obligations, leading to further discovery disputes and contempt proceedings when he failed to make required payments. The District Court repeatedly enforced the Final Decree, denied the husband’s motions to modify, and awarded attorney fees to the wife. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed these orders in a prior appeal. In December 2023, the husband, for the first time, moved to set aside the Final Decree on the basis that final disclosure statements had not been exchanged. The District Court denied this motion as untimely and because the statutory basis for relief did not apply.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s denial of the husband’s motion to set aside the Final Decree and his request for a new trial. The Court held that Montana law only authorizes setting aside a judgment if a party committed perjury in a final disclosure statement, which was not possible here since no such statements were exchanged. The Court also awarded the wife her attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal, remanding to the District Court to determine the reasonable amount. View "Marriage of: Kelly and Camp" on Justia Law

The case concerns two children who were removed from their parents’ care in 2018 due to concerns including unmet medical and educational needs, substance exposure, and a history of domestic violence and substance abuse by the parents. The children were placed with their grandparents, who were later appointed as guardians. The parents had supervised visitation, which increased to unsupervised visits after the father’s release from incarceration and the mother’s progress toward sobriety. In 2022, the parents sought to terminate the guardianship, while the grandparents requested recognition as third-party parents. A Guardian ad Litem (GAL) recommended the children remain with the grandparents and that visitation with the parents remain supervised.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, previously granted the grandparents a third-party parental interest and adopted a parenting plan requiring the parents to remain sober and address safety concerns to obtain unsupervised visitation. In early 2025, the grandparents moved to suspend visitation due to new safety concerns and the parents’ failure to continue counseling. The court suspended visitation, held a hearing, and heard testimony from the children’s therapists, who described the children’s anxiety and PTSD symptoms related to time spent with the parents. The court found a change in circumstances and amended the parenting plan to maintain the children’s primary residence with the grandparents and limit the parents to supervised visitation.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the parents’ appeal, which raised procedural and substantive challenges to the district court’s orders. The Supreme Court held that prior decisions regarding the third-party parental interest and related issues were binding under the law of the case doctrine. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s amendment of the parenting plan, concluding that a change in circumstances existed and that the amendment served the children’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Parenting of L.M.A.R. & N.R.R." on Justia Law

A married couple with four children sought dissolution of their marriage after several years together. The wife, who had primarily cared for the children earlier in the marriage, was employed as a surgical nurse earning about $2,990 per month, while the husband worked as a carpenter earning approximately $7,250 per month. In the dissolution proceedings, the marital estate was divided, with the wife receiving a share of the husband’s retirement and half the equity in the marital home, while the husband retained the home and its associated debt. The court also ordered the husband to pay child support, spousal maintenance, and the wife’s attorney’s fees.The Fourth Judicial District Court of Montana conducted a bench trial and issued a decree that included the award of attorney’s fees to the wife. The only evidence regarding attorney’s fees was the wife’s testimony that she owed her attorney about $2,000 and could be responsible for her own fees, and the husband’s testimony that he had paid his attorney by borrowing from his parents. The District Court found that the husband had been able to pay his attorney’s fees and the wife had not, and ordered the husband to pay the wife’s attorney’s fees without further explanation or reference to legal standards. The husband appealed, and after partial resolution in appellate mediation, the sole issue on appeal was the propriety of the attorney’s fees award.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and held that the District Court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees without grounding its decision in substantial evidence or applying the governing legal standards. The Supreme Court found that the District Court failed to make necessary findings regarding the necessity and reasonableness of the award and did not provide a sufficient factual or legal basis for its decision. The Supreme Court reversed the award of attorney’s fees. View "In re Marriage of Salois" on Justia Law

Two minor children’s maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, who were already their court-appointed guardians, filed a petition in March 2024 to terminate both parents’ rights and adopt the children under the Montana Adoption Act. At the time, the children’s father was incarcerated. He was personally served with the summons and petition but did not file a response. The Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court entered his default and set a termination hearing, sending notice to the father at the prison. The father had no attorney, did not appear at the hearing, and the court received no sworn testimony. The court terminated his parental rights by adopting the petitioners’ allegations.After the termination, the father obtained permission to file out-of-time appeals, which were consolidated. He argued that the District Court failed to appoint counsel as required by Montana precedent, did not comply with statutory notice requirements, and violated due process. The record showed that the District Court never advised the father of his right to counsel, made no inquiry into indigency, and did not provide the statutorily required notice warning that failure to appear could result in termination of parental rights. No proof of service of such notice was filed, and the court did not adjourn the hearing despite the father’s absence and lack of proof of service.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana held that the District Court violated the father’s constitutional right to equal protection by failing to advise him of his right to counsel and to inquire into indigency before terminating his parental rights. The court also found that the District Court failed to comply with the Montana Adoption Act’s mandatory notice-of-hearing provisions. The Supreme Court reversed the termination orders and remanded the case, directing the District Court to provide proper advisement, conduct an indigency inquiry, ensure statutory notice, and require clear and convincing evidence before any further termination. View "In re Adoption of A.K.M. & R.J.M." on Justia Law

A petitioner filed for a declaration of invalidity of marriage, asserting that the respondent’s consent to the marriage had been induced by duress and fraud. The petition was drafted by the respondent but left unsigned, as she ultimately decided not to pursue it. The petitioner found the paperwork and filed it without the respondent’s knowledge or consent. The respondent was served with the unsigned petition and a consent form, but was not served with a summons or an automatic economic restraining order as required by statute. She did not respond to the petition or attend any hearings, later claiming she was unaware of the proceedings. The petitioner attested to the statements in the petition and consented to the entry of a decree of invalidity.The Twentieth Judicial District Court, Lake County, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a final invalidity decree, concluding that the marriage was irretrievably broken due to serious marital discord and no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. The respondent appealed, arguing that she never signed the petition and that the court failed to consider her interests. The petitioner did not oppose the appeal and agreed that the district court’s judgment should be overruled.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the district court erred in declaring the marriage invalid because it failed to make findings under the statutory grounds for invalidity and instead relied solely on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage, which is not relevant to a declaration of invalidity. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s findings, conclusions, and decree of invalidity, and remanded with instructions to strike the unsigned petition and dismiss the cause. View "In re Marriage of Anderson" on Justia Law

Two women were married, divorced, and later remarried. During their relationship, one partner conceived two children using sperm donors, and both women jointly raised the children. After their separation, the biological mother filed for dissolution of marriage, initially stating there were no children of the marriage. The other partner countered, asserting that both children were part of the marriage and sought a parenting plan, later petitioning for a determination of parentage under Montana’s presumptive parentage statute. Both parties presented evidence at trial regarding their respective roles in the children’s lives, with testimony from family, friends, and professionals about their parenting and the children’s best interests.The District Court of the Second Judicial District, Butte-Silver Bow County, held a bench trial and, after hearing evidence, amended the pleadings to consider whether the non-biological parent could be awarded a parental interest under Montana’s third-party parental interest statute (§ 40-4-228, MCA). The court found that both parties had impliedly consented to try this issue, as evidence relevant to the statute was presented without objection. The District Court concluded that the non-biological parent had established a child-parent relationship, that the biological mother had engaged in conduct contrary to the parent-child relationship, and that it was in the children’s best interests to continue their relationship with the non-biological parent. The court entered a parenting plan accordingly.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in amending the pleadings to conform to the evidence and properly awarded a third-party parental interest under § 40-4-228, MCA. The Supreme Court found the District Court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the statutory requirements for awarding a third-party parental interest were met. View "In re Marriage of Rehbein and Paddock" on Justia Law

A married couple, who wed in 2020 and share a young child, purchased an engineering business together using loans secured by the wife’s premarital home. After their separation in 2023, the wife petitioned for divorce. The parties entered into interim agreements regarding custody, child support, and business management, but the husband repeatedly violated these orders by failing to make required payments, misusing business funds, and withholding financial disclosures. The wife raised concerns about the husband’s substance abuse and erratic behavior, providing evidence of his alcohol and marijuana use, as well as incidents of intoxication during child exchanges and at work. The husband denied these allegations but admitted to some problematic behavior in written communications.The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, held multiple hearings, finding the husband in contempt several times for violating court orders. At trial, the court heard testimony and reviewed evidence regarding the husband’s parenting, financial conduct, and the parties’ competing proposals for the business. The court found the wife more credible, sanctioned the husband for discovery violations, and ultimately awarded her primary custody of the child, with the husband’s parenting time to be phased in only after he completed chemical dependency and mental health evaluations. The court also awarded the wife sole ownership of the business and her premarital home, requiring her to assume all related debts.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s decisions. It held that the finding regarding the husband’s failure to make full financial disclosures was supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court also found no abuse of discretion in conditioning the husband’s parenting time on completion of evaluations or in awarding the business to the wife, as these decisions were equitable and consistent with Montana law. View "In re Marriage of Boeshans" on Justia Law

After a 17-year marriage, a couple divorced in 2018. The court awarded the wife, who was a homemaker, five years of maintenance and set child support based on her imputed income and the husband’s substantial earnings as an orthodontist. The wife later suffered a traumatic brain injury in a car accident, which left her unable to work for two years. She remarried, ending her maintenance payments, and subsequently experienced ongoing health issues, including complications from Covid-19. By 2024, her maintenance had expired, her income was significantly reduced, and she alleged that the children’s needs had changed, including concerns about health insurance for a special needs child. She also claimed the husband’s income had increased.The Montana Fifth Judicial District Court denied her motion to modify child support without permitting discovery or holding an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that the expiration of maintenance was anticipated in the original decree and did not constitute a changed circumstance. It also found the wife’s claims about the husband’s increased income and the children’s needs to be speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence, and thus concluded that no changed circumstances warranted review or modification of the child support order.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the wife’s substantial decrease in income, her ongoing health impairments, the children’s aging and insurance needs, and the husband’s alleged increased income constituted sufficient changed circumstances to warrant further inquiry. The Court found that the District Court abused its discretion by denying discovery and an evidentiary hearing, as these were necessary to determine whether the existing child support order had become unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings, including discovery and a hearing. View "In re Marriage of Jackson" on Justia Law

Twin infants were removed from their parents’ care after authorities found them living in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, including exposure to drugs, lack of medical care, and the presence of a registered sex offender in the home. The parents had a history of involvement with child protective services, including three prior removals of their older children due to domestic violence, substance abuse, and neglect, culminating in the involuntary termination of their parental rights to those children. After the twins’ birth in Washington, the family returned to Montana, where similar concerns quickly arose, leading to the Department of Public Health and Human Services seeking emergency protective services and termination of parental rights.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, held hearings on the Department’s petition. The parents did not contest probable cause for removal at the emergency hearing. The court appointed a guardian ad litem, who recommended that no reunification efforts were required due to the parents’ history. At the adjudication and termination hearing, the court found clear and convincing evidence of aggravated circumstances, including chronic, severe neglect and prior involuntary terminations, and concluded that the parents’ unfitness was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The court terminated both parents’ rights to the twins and granted permanent legal custody to the Department, finding that a treatment plan and further reunification efforts were not statutorily required.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in terminating the father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court held that substantial evidence supported the District Court’s findings of chronic, severe neglect and the relevance of prior terminations. The Court also held that the Department was not required to provide reunification services after seeking a determination that such efforts were unnecessary, and that the father’s due process rights were not violated. The decision of the District Court was affirmed. View "In re S.W. & D.W." on Justia Law

After the dissolution of their marriage in 2019, two parents agreed to a parenting plan for their child, D.C.S., which was adopted by the court and provided that the child would primarily reside with the mother, Rebeccah, while the father, Joshua, would have parenting time during visits to Montana. This arrangement remained unchanged for nearly four years. In 2022, the child’s maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, the Scotts, began caring for D.C.S. due to concerns about Rebeccah’s behavior, including substance abuse and neglect. The Scotts alleged that the child’s living conditions with Rebeccah were unsafe and that Joshua had not been involved in the child’s life for several years. After Rebeccah removed D.C.S. from school and moved him to North Dakota, the Scotts sought third-party parenting rights and obtained an ex parte emergency order granting them temporary custody.The Scotts filed their petition and emergency motion in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Rebeccah objected, challenging the Scotts’ standing and the allegations against her, and moved to amend or set aside the emergency order. The District Court denied her motion, finding the Scotts’ affidavits sufficient for temporary relief. After a full evidentiary hearing, where both sides presented evidence, the District Court issued findings and amended the parenting plan, granting primary custody to the Scotts and parenting time to Rebeccah.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court’s final custody order should be vacated due to alleged procedural errors in granting the initial emergency order, and whether plain error review was warranted for the denial of Rebeccah’s post-judgment motions. The Supreme Court held that any procedural defects in the temporary order were cured by the subsequent evidentiary hearing and final order, rendering those issues moot. The Court also declined to exercise plain error review, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice. The District Court’s order was affirmed. View "In re Parenting of D.C.S." on Justia Law