Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Mother and Father, the parents of two children, divorced, Father married Stepmother, and the two children resided with Father and Stepmother. Stepmother filed petitions for adoption of the children and an order terminating Mother’s parental rights. Thereafter, the district court entered a decree of adoption in Stepmother’s favor and terminated Mother’s parental rights to the children, finding that Mother had willfully abandoned the children and had not supported them. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Montana’s right to equal protection requires that counsel be appointed for indigent parents in termination proceedings brought under the Adoption Act; and (2) on remand, the district court was directed to appoint counsel for Mother if it determined that she was financially eligible. View "In re Adoption of A.W.S." on Justia Law

In 2007, the district court granted dissolution of the marriage of Husband and Wife. Multiple appeals and other related cases followed. In 2013, the district court issued an amended judgment in which it revised downward from an earlier judgment the amount of money Husband owed Wife and held that Wife had the right to have the judgment entered as a foreign judgment in Idaho where Husband retained property. Husband appealed this amended judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arguments Husband raised on appeal were either not properly before the Court. The Court also granted Wife’s request that Husband be sanctioned as a vexatious litigant, as sanctions were necessary to curb further abusive litigant by Husband. View "In re Marriage of Guill" on Justia Law

In 2003, a child (Child) was born to Tracy Cumber. Steven Higgins was found to be the birth father and was designated the primary residential parent. Steven subsequently married Karen Higgins. Steven died in 2009. Tracy was subsequently granted primary residential custody of the Child, and the Child started living with Tracy and her husband, Randy Cumber. In 2011, Randy adopted the Child. In the meantime, Karen filed a petition requesting visitation with the Child. The district court granted the petition, and the Cumbers appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not apply the correct analysis when it determined that visitation was in the best interests of the Child. View "Higgins v. Cumber" on Justia Law

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