Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This appeal was part of an ongoing parenting and child support proceeding that has been before the district court for more than a decade. Mother and Father had a child together. In 2014, Mother and Father entered into the current parenting plan assigning primary physical custody of the child to Mother. The plan provided that child support shall be paid as ordered by the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED). After Mother petitioned CSED for recalculation of the child support obligation between the parties, CSED issued a final order eliminating Mother’s monthly support obligation and imposing a $679 monthly support obligation on Father. In 2015, Father moved for judicial modification of the CSED order, alleging that he lacked sufficient resources to pay $679 per month and requesting a reduction to $200 per month. The district court granted relief, concluding that Father’s change in circumstances gave justifiable reason to vary from the CSED guidelines. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while Father’s previous child support was correctly calculated under the CSED guidelines, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the CSED-determined obligation would be unjust or inappropriate. View "Myrick v. Skolrud" on Justia Law

Child was adjudicated a youth in need of care. Temporary legal custody was granted to the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division, and Child was placed with Jared and Cindy Watson. Patrick and Corinne Gilbert, who had custody of two of Child’s biological half-siblings, intervened in the case. The district court subsequently terminated Mother’s and any and all putative fathers’ parental rights and granted permanent legal custody to the Department. After a placement hearing, the district court concluded that it was in Child’s best interests to remain in her current placement with the Watsons for adoption. The Gilberts appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err approving the Department’s placement of Child with the Watsons. View "In re B.W.S." on Justia Law

Less than one year after N.M.V. was born to Erin Verploegen, Dustin Cross and Verploegen began dating. Verploegen and N.M.V. later moved into Cross’s home. Cross and Verploegen broke up several years later, and Verploegen and N.M.V. moved out. Thereafter, Cross petitioned the district court for a parenting interest in N.M.V. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its ruling on Cross’s parental interest was supported by substantial credible evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. View "In re Parenting of N.M.V." on Justia Law

The district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to one of her three children after holding a final parental rights termination hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated Mother’s parental rights, as the record clearly showed that the Department of Health and Human Services engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-423(1), and the decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) Mother’s due process right was not infringed when she was without counsel. View "In re M.V.R." on Justia Law

In 2012, the district court entered a decree dissolving the marriage of John and Emily Brown. The decree incorporated by reference a separation agreement that provided a parenting plan and child support for the parties’ daughter. The parenting plan designated Emily as the primary parent. In 2014, John filed a motion to modify his child support obligation, claiming that his income and financial circumstances had changed significantly. The next year, John filed a motion to amend the parenting plan seeking increased visitation. The district court denied John’s motions without holding a hearing, concluding that John had not shown a substantial change in circumstances or provided a basis for modifying his child support obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying John’s motions to modify child support and amend the parenting plan without a hearing; and (2) Emily was not entitled to attorney’s fees associated with the appeal. View "In re Marriage of Brown" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his two minor children, a girl and a boy. After a termination hearing at which Father failed to appear, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights, concluding that reasonable efforts made been made given the need to protect the children’s health and safety. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that the Department made reasonable efforts to prevent the necessity of removing the two children, as required by Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-423. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law

After a hearing at which all parties were represented by counsel, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her two children and granted Stepmother’s petition for adoption. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in declining to address Mother’s constitutional arguments; (2) the district court did not err in finding that Mother was unfit; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights and allowing Stepmother to adopt the children; and (4) Mother was not denied the effective assistance of counsel. View "In re A.W.S." on Justia Law

In 2003, Mother and Father divorced. In 2015, Father made a second attempt to modify his child support obligation for the two children he had with Mother. After a hearing, the district court stayed Father’s child support obligation for thirteen months and then ordered that Father’s monthly child support would resume and that Father would be required to pay off the child support accumulated during the stay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Father’s motion to modify his child support obligation. View "In re Marriage of Scanlon" on Justia Law

Matt Wagenman and Tammy Wagenman filed a pro se joint petition for dissolution to dissolve their marriage and divide up their property and debt. In their petition, the parties stated that their real property should be distributed as described in Exhibit A, which they attached to their petition. In the final decree of dissolution, the court did not enter the property and debt distribution according to Exhibit A, nor did it incorporate Exhibit A into the decree. Approximately two years later, the parties discovered that the district court failed to incorporate Exhibit A into the decree. Matt’s counsel subsequently filed a motion to compel, requesting that the court order Tammy to quitclaim her interest in the home based on the final decree. Tammy, in turn, filed a motion to amend the final decree of dissolution to incorporate Exhibit A as the parties originally requested. The district court denied Tammy’s motion to amend the decree and granted Matt’s motion to compel and awarded Matt attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) erred by failing to incorporate Exhibit A into the final decree and by denying Tammy’s motion to amend the final decree to incorporate Exhibit A; and (2) improperly awarded attorney fees to Matt. Remanded. View "In re Marriage of Wagenman" on Justia Law

Z, the twelve-year-old son of Mother and Father, was born in 2003 when the parents were unmarried and in high school. In 2007, the parents filed a stipulated first amended parenting plan providing that Z would reside primarily with Jessica, while Father would have certain parenting time. In 2014, Father filed a pro se emergency motion to amend the amended plan, arguing that Mother’s multiple moves and frequent changes in schools were disruptive to Z’s stability. After a hearing, the district court named Father as the primary residential parent and providing that Mother would have parenting time on designated weekends and holidays. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by modifying the parenting plan; (2) the district court’s findings of fact related to Z’s best interests were not clearly erroneous; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Mother’s request for attorney fees and costs. View "In re Parenting of Z.D.L.-B" on Justia Law