Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

J.H. was the minor child of Mother and Father. The district court granted the petition of the Department of Public Health and Human Service for temporary legal custody of J.H. The Department later filed a permanency plan that did not include the option of placing J.H. with Father. Thereafter, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights. The Department later filed a petition for long-term custody of J.H. and a second permanency plan that sought placement of J.H. with J.H.’s maternal great aunt under a guardianship. The district court granted the Department’s petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that the Department engaged in reasonable efforts to reunify J.H. with Father; and (2) finding that J.H.’s best interest were served by living with his great maternal aunt, and not with Father. View "In re J.H." on Justia Law

In 1999, the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) entered an order requiring Samuel Shelhamer to pay Tamara Hodges $74 per month in child support. In 2014, CSED modified the order and established Shelhamer’s monthly support obligation at $743 per month. Shelhamer, a warrant officer in the United States Marine Corps, requested an administrative hearing. After a hearing, CSED issued its final administrative order setting Shelhamer’s support obligation at $935 per month. The final decision included Shelhamer’s non-taxable basic housing allowance and non-taxable basic subsistence allowance in Shelhamer's actual income to calculate his child support obligation. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a parent’s military housing and subsistence allowances should be included as part of the parent’s actual income when calculating child support obligations. View "Shelhamer v. Hodges" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) filed a petition seeking emergency protective authority, adjudication of Father’s three minor children as youth in need of care, and temporary legal custody. The district court adjudicated all children as youths in need of care and granted temporary legal custody to DPHHS. In 2015, upon a petition filed by DPHHS and after a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s rights to his three minor children, concluding that Father’s condition that led to the children’s removal was unlikely to change within a reasonable time and that continuation of the parental relationship would likely result in continued abuse or neglect of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in terminating Father’s parental rights. View "In re K.A." on Justia Law

Father and Mother were the biological parents of three minor children. Mother and Grandfather filed a joint petition for termination of Father’s parental rights and for Grandfather to adopt the children. When Father could not be found, the district court clerk of court entered an order directing that service of the summons be made upon Father by publication in the Billings Times newspaper. Father did not respond to the summons, and the clerk of court entered default against Father. After a hearing, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights and granted decrees of adoption for each of the children. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Father was not properly served by publication because the clerk of court, not the district court, entered the order directing service by publication; and (2) the district court erred in making no findings of fact on Grandfather’s standing under either Mont. Code Ann. 42-1-106 or 42-4-302(2). View "Jardine v. Schwartz" on Justia Law

Wife filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage to Husband. After a bench trial, the district court entered written findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution, ordering that certain properties owned by the parties be sold and that the proceeds be put toward paying off delinquent tax liability to the Internal Revenue Service and the Montana Department of Revenue. Wife appealed the court’s finding and conclusion regarding the tax liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in considering the tax liability as marital debt or by including that debt in apportioning the marital estate. View "In re Marriage of Rose" on Justia Law

In 2013, the district court adjudicated Mother’s two minor children youths in need of care. In 2015, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights, concluding that Mother’s conduct or condition rendering her unfit was unlikely to change within a reasonable time because Mother had an extensive history and current issues related to substance abuse, was homeless, and had no income. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the conduct or condition that made Mother unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; (2) the district court correctly applied the presumption in Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-604(1) to conclude that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in her children’s best interests; and (3) Mother failed to demonstrate that her counsel was ineffective or that she was prejudiced as a result. View "In re C.W.E." on Justia Law

In 2015, the district court issued an order dissolving the marriage of Herb Paschen and Anne Paschen. Herb appealed, arguing that the district court erred in the amount of income it imputed to him for the purpose of setting monthly child support and maintenance payments and erred in apportioning the marital real estate. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court’s imputation of Herb’s earning capacity at $100,000; but (2) reversed and remanded the district court’s inclusion of Herb’s mother’s monetary gifts into Herb’s annual resources for purposes of child support and spousal maintenance calculation, holding that Herb’s mother’s gifts to Herb were not to be considered as income. View "In re Marriage of Paschen" on Justia Law

M.H. was the biological mother of J.B., now age ten. N.L., M.H.’s longtime boyfriend, acted as a father and raised J.B. from from eight months old, at seven years old, J.B. was removed from his home by the Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS). M.H. and N.L.’s two biological children were removed at the same time. Prior to DPHHS’s involvement with the family, N.L. and M.H.’s relationship ended. After J.B.’s half-siblings were returned to N.L.’s care, M.H. moved the district court to dismiss N.L. as a party to J.B.’s case. The district court ordered N.L. dismissed as a party, concluding that N.L. was not entitled to continued notice or the right to appear in any subsequent proceedings relating to J.B. because N.L. did not satisfy the definition of an “interested person.” The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the district court did not err in dismissing N.L. as a party to J.B.’s proceeding, but (2) under Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-422(9)(a), N.L. is a person interested in J.B.’s cause and has a right to appear at hearings pertaining to J.B. Remanded. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

Three minor children had potential claims against their father (Father) and their father’s business arising out of an automobile accident that killed their mother. An attorney petitioned the district court to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) to determine if litigation was in the children’s best interests and counsel to pursue those claims on the children’s behalf. Father objected to the attorney’s application for the appointment of a GAL, contending that his family is financially secure and that pursuing further insurance coverage would be traumatic for his children. The district court determined that Father had a conflict of interest with the children because he would be the named defendant in a suit filed on their behalf and appointed a GAL to determine whether litigation was in the best interests of Father’s children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a GAL to determine whether the pursuit of certain legal claims would be in the best interests of Father’s children. View "In re Conservatorship of Soule" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in California when Child was born. They subsequently divorced, and the parties agreed to a parenting plan that was approved by a California court. That agreement specified that Father did not have to pay any child support. The California court adopted that provision as part of its final order. When Child was approximately two years old, Mother moved to Montana and married Petitioner. Four years later, Petitioner filed a petition seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights so that Petitioner could adopt Child. The sole basis for the petition was that Father was an unfit parent for failure to pay child support. The district court concluded that there was no basis for terminating Father’s parental rights and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) giving full faith and credit to the parenting plan and child support order entered by the California court; and (2) refusing to terminate the parental rights of Father. View "In re Adoption of P.T.H." on Justia Law