Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Thirteen-year-old M.S. was placed into emergency protective custody in 2011. After M.S. was adjudicated a youth in need of care, the Department of Public Health and Human Services filed a petition for termination of Father's rights. Because Father was an enrolled member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe (Tribe), M.S. was eligible for enrollment with the Tribe and, under Indian Child Welfare Act, M.S. was an Indian child. After a hearing in 2013, the district court ordered Father’s parental rights terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the termination proceedings complied with statutory requirements for proceedings involving an Indian child. View "In re M.S." on Justia Law

In 2013, the district court entered a decree of dissolution dissolving the marriage of Wife and Husband. The district court incorporated a property settlement agreement as part of the decree. Approximately one year later, Wife sought relief from the final decree, claiming that the property settlement was unconscionable and that the district court should modify the dissolution decree. The district court denied Wife’s request, finding that there was no basis in fact or law to re-open and modify the decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Wife did not present any substantial reason that her agreement to the settlement should be overturned or that the dissolution decree should be modified. View "In re Marriage of Tanascu" on Justia Law

The paternal grandmother (Grandmother) of two minor children petitioned the district court for grandparent-grandchild contact. After a hearing, the district court granted Grandmother weekly phone contact, occasional weekend visits in Billings, Montana, and two weeks during the summer at Grandmother’s home in Washington. The natural mother of the children (Mother) appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court with the exception of the provisions regarding extended visits in Washington state, holding that the district court correctly interpreted and applied the grandparent-grandchild contact statute, with the exception of the out-of-state visitation provisions adopted over Mother’s objections. View "Gardner v. Gardner" on Justia Law

In 2012, L.S.P. filed a petition in Flathead County seeking appointment as the guardian and conservator of her father, H.O., who was a resident of Flathead County at the time of the petition. H.O. subsequently moved to an assisted living facility in Missoula County. The district court appointed L.S.P. and her brother, J.O., temporary guardians and conservators of H.O. In 2014, L.S.P. filed a motion to transfer venue to Missoula County. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the order transferring venue to Missoula County was a final order and was reviewable by the Court; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that venue be transferred to Missoula County. View "In re Guardianship of H.O." on Justia Law

The State petitioned for permanent legal custody and the termination of Mother’s parental rights to B.W.S. because Mother failed to complete a court-ordered treatment plan. After a termination hearing, Judge Olson terminated Mother’s parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed the termination order and remanded for a new hearing before a different judge on the petition to terminate parental rights, holding (1) the district court’s failure to meet certain procedural deadlines did not affects its subject matter jurisdiction over this case; but (2) because Judge Olson served as counsel in the case, he was required to disqualify himself as a matter of law.View "In re B.W.S." on Justia Law

Husband and Wife were married and had been together for more than fifty years. Wife suffered from multiple sclerosis and cognitive impairments. After Wife’s son and daughter sought and obtained appointments as Wife’s co-guardians/conservators, Husband filed two petitions to either be appointed as guardian/conservator for Wife or to terminate the guardianship. The district court appointed Wife’s brother and sister-in-law as Wife’s guardians and conservators, authorized them to restrict Husband’s access to Wife, and awarded them reasonable attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in finding that Wife’s brother and sister-in-law were best qualified to serve as permanent co-guardians/conservators and in permitting them to restrict contract between Husband and Wife, as the limited contact was necessary for Wife to receive care from the assisted living facility where she had been thriving before Husband’s interference; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the co-guardians/conservators incurred in the defense of Husband’s frivolous action.View "In re J.A.L." on Justia Law

L.N. was the fourth child born to Mother and Father. After L.N. was born, the State petitioned for termination of parental rights. After a hearing, the district court found that the State had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Mother and Father had subjected L.N.’s siblings to chronic and severe neglect and that the parental rights of Mother and Father to L.N.’s siblings had been terminated under circumstances relevant to their ability to care for L.N. The court then concluded that reasonable efforts at reunification were not required and terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father to L.N. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father.View "In re L.N." on Justia Law

In 2010, Todd Schmidt petitioned to dissolve his marriage to Aimee Schmidt. In 2012, the district court entered a decree of dissolution setting forth a parenting schedule and dividing the marital property 50/50. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings, conclusions, and decree entered by the district court with one exception, holding that the district court (1) did not clearly abuse its discretion in the parenting plan it adopted; (2) erred by including Aimee’s credit union account twice in a spreadsheet format in its calculation of the marital estate; (3) did not err in determining the value of the Three Rivers bank account; and (4) did not err by including the value of a post-separation account held under the name of Jeffrey S. Lamoreaux, who was living with Aimee at the time of the hearing, in its distribution of the marital estate.View "In re Marriage of Schmidt" on Justia Law

Drew Wendt and Jennifer Wendt had one child from their marriage, and another child from Jennifer’s previous marriage also resided with the couple. After the parties divorced, Jennifer filed a motion to modify the parenting plan requesting that Drew’s parenting time be dramatically reduced. The district court ordered the parties to attend mediation on the matter. Due to Drew’s failure to appear at the mediation the district court entered an order amending the parenting plan. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the judgment was void as a matter of law because the court did not follow the statutory procedure for amending parenting plans, thus depriving Drew of due process of law.View "In re Marriage of Wendt" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were married in 2005 and had a child in 2009. Father subsequently filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In 2013, the district court ordered a parenting plan in which the parties’ child would travel between Mother’s and Father’s respective residences every six weeks. Mother appealed, alleging several errors in the district court’s parenting determination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that it would be in the child’s best interests to spend equal time with both parents until he reached school age.View "In re Marriage of Woerner" on Justia Law