Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In two separate proceedings, the district court adjudicated A.S. and A.M., the biological children of Mother and Father, as youths in need of care. The district court subsequently filed a petition for termination of parental rights as to Mother for both A.S. and A.M., and as to Father for A.S. After a hearing, the district court entered orders terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Mother’s constitutional rights by terminating Mother’s parental rights to A.S. and A.M. after finding that the conduct or condition rendering Mother unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights to A.S. View "In re A.S." on Justia Law

Stephanie filed for dissolution of her four-year marriage with John in 2002. Following a November 2003 dissolution hearing, the court approved a stipulated Final Parenting Plan and Property Settlement Agreement, under which John paid $600 per month in child support for the couple’s children, born in 1999 and 2000. John consistently made timely child support payments, but neglected to establish a College Trust as agreed. In November 2013, Stephanie requested modification of the child support arrangement. The Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) calculated monthly child support totalling $1,142 per month. John was to begin making these payments in February 2014. While John’s appeal was pending, Stephanie learned that John had not paid their daughter’s tuition for the school year . CSED submitted a revised modification order that included John’s recalculated child support of a total of $2,048 per month. The court found that the evidence presented supported CSED’s use of past overtime earnings to calculate John’s child support; upheld CSED’s calculation; and ordered the parties to establish a 529 plan account for each child, with John to deposit $17,531.18 and Stephanie to deposit $4,481.23. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, but modified the retroactive application of the $2,048 per month child support. View "Marriage of Healy" on Justia Law