Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law setting forth the court’s parenting plan, which provided for the parties’ children to reside on a primary basis in Columbus, Montana, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.The Supreme Court affirmed and declined to award attorney fees, holding (1) the district court’s findings were sufficiently pertinent to the issues, comprehensively set forth the basis for the court’s decision, were supported by the evidence, and were not clearly erroneous; (2) the court’s conclusions of law were correct; and (3) the court employed conscientious judgment in reaching its decision. View "In re Marriage of Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County (Montana Court) determining that it had jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding concerning Father’s minor child (Child), holding the court did not err in finding Child's home state to be Montana and assuming initial subject matter jurisdiction over the child custody proceeding.Child was born in Montana, where she lived with Mother after Father moved to Minnesota. Mother and Child moved to Minnesota and lived there for approximately eight months before moving back to Montana. When Father “took custody” of Child Mother commenced a child custody proceeding by petitioning the Montana Court to establish a parenting plan for Child. Father then brought a separate custody proceeding in a Minnesota Court by filing complaint to establish paternity and resolve parenting issues. The Montana Court determined Montana to be the home state of Child and assumed jurisdiction over the matter. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, consistent with the requirements and intent of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the Montana and Minnesota Courts appropriately communicated and cooperated to resolve the jurisdictional issue; and (2) there was substantial credible evidence supporting the findings and conclusions of the Montana Court. View "Smalling v. Klubben" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating the parental rights of A.M., the putative father of P.T.D., holding that the district court was not required to comply with the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) when terminating A.M.’s parental rights.After P.T.D. was removed from Mother’s custody, the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division identified P.T.D. as an Indian child subject to the ICWA. See 25 U.S.C. 1912. Later, the Department filed a petition to terminate A.M.’s parental rights as P.T.D.’s putative father. By that time, P.T.D. had been in foster care for nearly two years, and A.M. had no meaningful contact with P.T.D., nor had he established a relationship with the child. The district court determined that termination of A.M.’s parental rights was in P.T.D.’s best interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the requirements of ICWA were inapplicable to the facts of this case and that the district court’s decision to terminate A.M.’s parental rights was not clearly erroneous. View "In re P.T.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights to his daughter, M.B., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.On appeal, Father argued that the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division violated his due process rights when it withheld discovery and that the district court erroneously determined that the Department met its burden under Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-609(1)(f) to terminate his parental rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Father failed to establish that the Department’s failure to provide complete discovery amounted to a due process violation; (2) this Court declines to review Father’s claim that his treatment plans were inappropriate; and (3) the district court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law were correct. View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to her two children, holding that the court erred in proceeding with termination of parental rights in the absence of a conclusive tribal determination regarding each child’s status as an Indian child defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a threshold determination of whether the two children were Indian children based on a conclusive tribal determination of tribal membership and eligibility in the Blackfeet Tribe. The Court noted that the district court may re-enter judgment against Mother on the merits of its prior findings of fact and conclusions of law if it found and concluded on a conclusive tribal determination that the two children are not Indian children. View "In re D.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother’s parental rights to G.W., holding that the district court did not clearly err in adjudicating the child a youth in need of care (YINC).After adjudicating G.W. a YINC, the district court adopted a treatment plan for Mother. Mother failed to complete her treatment plan, and the district court terminated her parental relationship with G.W. Mother appealed, arguing that the district court erred by adjudicating G.W. a YINC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate Mother’s due process rights by limiting the adjudicatory hearing to three hours; and (2) sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that G.W. suffered psychological abuse or was at risk of suffering psychological abuse. View "In re G.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Vincent Toenjes’ (Vince) motion to modify his maintenance obligation to Joni Hardy (Joni), his former wife, and requiring him to pay Joni’s attorney fees and granted Joni attorney fees on appeal, holding that there was no error in the district court’s judgment.The district court concluded that, even where Vince had lost his job, the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement relating to maintenance had not become unconscionable under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court (1) correctly interpreted the maintenance provisions of the parties’ marital and property settlement agreement; (2) did not abuse its discretion in determining that the changed circumstances did not make the agreement unconscionable; and (3) properly granted attorney fees to Joni based on the terms of the settlement agreement. Further, Joni was entitled to attorney fees on appeal under the same provision of the settlement agreement. View "In re Marriage of Toenjes" on Justia Law

The district court erred in treating Bryan Larson’s appeal of the justice court’s denial of his motion to dissolve a final order of protection as an appeal of the order of protection.After Shoshon Anderson and Bryan Larson were divorced, Anderson filed for a temporary order of protection. The justice court issued a final order of protection against Larson in 2015. The final order of protection expires in 2019. In 2017, Larson filed a motion to dissolve the final protection order. The justice court denied the motion. Larson appealed. The district court treated the appeal as an appeal of the order of protection itself and denied it as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in denying Larson’s appeal as untimely because Larson sought to dissolve the final order of protection, not to appeal it. View "In re Marriage of Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his minor children, X.B. and I.B.On appeal, Father argued that the district court abused its discretion in determining that he did not successfully complete his treatment plan and in concluding that the conduct or condition rendering him unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Father failed successfully to complete an appropriate treatment plan and did not err in concluding that Father’s conduct or condition rendering him unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable amount of time. View "In re X.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Petitioner’s request to review the Standing Master’s order denying Petitioner relief in this dissolution proceeding on the basis that Petitioner's objections to the order lacked specificity under Mont. Code Ann. 3-5-126(2).After Petitioner’s marriage was dissolved, Petitioner moved the district court to enforce the debts and liabilities provision incorporated into the parties’ dissolution decree. The Standing Master denied relief. Petitioner filed a notice of specific objections to the Standing Master’s order and a motion requesting that the district court review it. The district court denied the request, concluding that Petitioner’s objections to the order lacked specificity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in determining that Petitioner failed specifically to object to the Standing Master’s order under section 3-5-126(2). View "In re Marriage of Scrantom" on Justia Law