Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Mother and Father were the biological parents of two minor children. After the parents were divorced in Colorado, Mother moved to Montana with the children and registered the Colorado judgment in a Montana district court. Mother subsequently married Husband. Mother and Husband petitioned the district court to terminate Father’s parental rights and to allow Husband to adopt the children. The district court granted the petition, and adoption of the children by Husband became final. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights; and (2) did not err in conducting the termination proceedings in the absence of legal representation for Father. View "In re J.W.M." on Justia Law

Julie filed with the district court a dissolution petition that included a marital asset distribution proposal in which William would be awarded ownership of the couple’s real property on Hobson Street in Butte, Montana. On March 16, 2012, the district court held a final dissolution hearing at which William made certain statements regarding the real property at issue. The court largely adopted Julie’s proposed distribution of assets and, on April 3, 2012, issued its final decree of dissolution. The district court denied William’s motion for relief from judgment. The Supreme Court reversed. On remand, the district court concluded that William’s 2012 statements regarding the appraisal values of the Hobson Street house constituted judicial admissions and, therefore, all evidence related to the house’s condition obtained after the March 16, 2012 hearing was properly excluded. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in ruling that William’s statements made during the March 2012 dissolution hearing constituted judicial admissions; and (2) the district court erred in precluding William from presenting evidence relating to the value of the real property at issue based upon these alleged judicial admissions. Remanded so as to allow the parties to present their respective evidence and arguments with respect to the Hobson Street property. View "In re Marriage of Steyh" on Justia Law

A licensed social worker informed the Department of Public Health and Human Services that Mother was psychologically abusing her two girls. After investigating the report, the Department removed the girls from Mother’s custody and placed them into foster care. The Department later returned the girls to Mother’s care. Mother sued the State, alleging that the Department failed adequately to investigate the social worker’s report before removing her children from her care, and as a result, she was wrongfully charged with and arrested for criminal contempt in Wisconsin, was denied custody and visitation with her children, and suffered emotional distress. The State moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was statutorily immune from suit. The district court denied the motion The district court later summary judgment for the State, concluding that the State qualified for statutory immunity. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s earlier decision and order and affirmed the district court’s later judgment in favor of the State, holding that the State was entitled as a matter of law to statutory immunity from Mother’s claims because Mother failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to support her claim that the State employees involved in the investigation were grossly negligent or knowingly provided false information. View "Weber v. State" on Justia Law

After a hearing, the district court entered an order terminating Appellant’s rights to her four children. The court found that termination was appropriate because the children were previously adjudicated youths in need of care, a treatment plan approved by the court was not completed by Mother, and the conduct or condition rendering Mother unfit was unlikely to change in a reasonable time because of Mother’s drug problems. The court also concluded that termination was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the treatment plan was appropriate when it did not require Mother to obtain a chemical dependency evaluation; (2) Mother’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to advocate for inclusion of a chemical dependency evaluation in the treatment plan; and (3) the district court acted within its discretion when it denied Mother’s request for transcripts of its in-chambers interviews with the children. View "In re T.N.-S." on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in Canada in 2010 and moved to Montana in 2013. Later that year, Mother and the parties’ child travelled to Canada and stayed there into 2014. Father filed a petition for dissolution with the Yellowstone County District Court in 2014 and asked the district court to resolve matters of Father’s parenting and custody. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the parenting and custody issues, concluding that Montana was not the child’s “home state” for purposes of Mont. Code Ann. 40-7-201. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) refusing to hold a hearing prior to issuing its order; and (2) deciding that it lacked jurisdiction over the parenting and custody issues. View "In re Marriage of Sampley" on Justia Law

In 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services petitioned the district court to terminate Mother’s parental rights to her four children. After a hearing, the district court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order terminating Mother’s rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that the treatment plan was deficient where it did not require Mother to obtain a chemical dependency evaluation and treatment, this was not sufficient to render the treatment plan inappropriate; (2) Mother’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to advocate for inclusion of a chemical dependency evaluation in the treatment plan; and (3) the district court properly exercised its discretion to deny Mother’s requests for transcripts of its in-chambers interviews with the children. View "In re T.N.-S." on Justia Law

In 2014, the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) filed a petition for termination of Father’s parental rights to his two children. After a termination hearing, the district court determined that clear and convincing evidence supported terminating Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in terminating Father’s parental rights, as the court based its decision on clear and convincing evidence and properly applied the legal standards governing termination; and (2) did not err in concluding that the Department complied with its statutory duty to provide reunification services. View "In re A.K." on Justia Law

In 2011, Wife filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. While the case was pending, the parties entered into an interim support agreement (ISA), in which the parties settled all maintenance and support issues. After a trial, the district court entered an order dissolving the marriage. In the order, the district court ordered Husband to pay child support, decided that an award of maintenance was not appropriate, terminated Husband’s temporary support obligations under the ISA, and divided the parties’ property between them. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion by (1) failing to state the net worth of the marital estate in a specific factual finding; (2) awarding Husband certain pre-marital and post-separation property; (3) denying maintenance in favor of Wife; and (4) awarding child support. View "In re Marriage of Axelberg" on Justia Law

Mother and Father had a son. Plaintiffs in this case were the child’s paternal grandparents (“Grandparents”). When Mother and Father separated, the child began living with Mother. Grandparents filed a petition under Mont. Code Ann. 40-9-102 seeking unsupervised visits with their grandson. Mother objected to any additional visitation beyond the contact she had provided. The district court granted Mother’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Mother was a fit parent and that Grandparents needed to establish “substantially more” to overcome the statutory presumption in favor of supporting Mother’s wishes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied Mont. Code Ann. 40-9-102 in denying Grandparents’ petition for extended contact with their grandson. View "Glueckert v. Glueckert" on Justia Law

In 2000, the marriage of Brenda Cadena and Kevin Fries was dissolved. The order approved a settlement agreement that Cadena and Fries had previously entered into that provided that Fries’ Western Conference of Teamsters pension would be equally divided between the parties. In 2013, Cadena filed a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) proposing her method of dividing the pension. Fries objected to Cadena’s proposed QDRO and submitted a proposed order of his own. The district court issued a QDRO identical to Cadena’s proposed order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Cadena’s proposed method of distributing the pension accurately reflected the division required by the settlement agreement; (2) the district court was correct not to award attorney fees in favor of Fries; and (3) Cadena was entitled to reasonable attorney fees on appeal. View "In re Marriage of Fries" on Justia Law