Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After a hearing held on the second petition filed by the Department of Public Health and Human Services for termination of Mother’s parental rights, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her three children on the grounds that Mother had not successfully completed her treatment plan and the condition rendering her unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) despite delays in holding the show cause, adjudicatory, and dispositional hearings, Mother’s due process rights were not violated by the efforts of the Department and court to provide her with services, a treatment plan, and time to work toward reunification with her children; and (2) the district court did not err when it found that Mother failed to complete her treatment plan and the condition rendering her unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. View "In re A.H." on Justia Law

In 2012, M.C. was born to Mother and Father, who were unmarried. After Mother told Father that she intended to live in Ohio with M.C., Father petitioned the district court for establishment of a parenting plan, proposing that he should become M.C.’s primary caregiver. Mother proposed a parenting plan that would allow her to reside in Ohio as M.C.’s primary caregiver. After a hearing, the district court concluded that if Mother chose to live in Montana, the parties would be directed to submit parenting plans naming Mother as M.C.’s primary caregiver, and that if Mother chose to live in Ohio, the parties would be directed to submit proposed parenting plans naming Father as M.C.’s primary caregiver. The Supreme Court affirmed the parenting plan, holding that the district court did not violate Mother’s fundamental right to travel by ordering that M.C. should reside in Montana. View "In re Parenting of M.C." on Justia Law

I.T., an infant, was adjudged a youth in need of care and was placed in foster care. The district court ordered that the Department of Public Health and Human Services did not need to provide preservation or reunification services for Mother on the grounds that Mother’s parental rights to I.T.’s siblings were involuntarily terminated and that the conditions rendering Mother unfit in that termination proceeding were unlikely to change. Thereafter, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights to I.T. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in terminating Mother’s parental rights. View "In re I.T." on Justia Law

The Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services filed a petition for emergency protective services for seven-year-old H.T., alleging drug use by Mother and domestic violence between Mother and her boyfriend. The petition stated that H.T. “may be an Indian Child for the purposes of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).” The district court granted the motion for emergency protective services. The district court subsequently held a hearing that adjudicated H.T. a youth in need of care. The Department then filed a petition for permanent legal custody and termination of parental rights. The district court held a termination hearing and adopted and approved the termination petition. Mother appealed, asserting that the district court failed to comply with state and federal statutory requirements for terminating parental rights to an Indian child. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) Mother received fundamentally fair procedures prior to the termination of her parental rights; but (2) because the district court applied the wrong statutory standards in its final order, its judgment is vacated. Remanded for entry of a new order on the issue of whether Mother’s parental rights should be terminated. View "In re H.T." on Justia Law