Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Upon the dissolution of their marriage, Husband and Wife entered into a dissolution settlement agreement that provided that Wife was entitled to half of Husband’s federal retirement benefits entered during the parties’ marriage. Wife later sought an order to show cause alleging that Husband violated the agreement by not naming her as the beneficiary of his Survivorship Benefit Plan. The district court granted Wife’s motion, concluding that the agreement awarded Wife a portion of Husband’s Survivorship Annuity. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the agreement reflected the parties’ intent that Husband was to retain ownership of the Survivorship Annuity after the dissolution. View "In re Marriage of Bushnell" on Justia Law

The district court adjudicated M.J.C. a youth in need of care and granted temporary legal custody of M.J.C. to the Department of Public Health and Human Services based on physical neglect by Mother, and absence of a father. A court-ordered paternity test later determined D.W. to be the father of M.J.C. After Mother and D.W. failed to comply with the requirements of their treatment plans, the State filed a petition to terminate their parental rights. The district court terminated the parental rights of Mother and D.W. after a hearing. D.W. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s determination was supported by clear and convincing evidence.View "In re M.J.C." on Justia Law

Kelisa Allen and Justin Tucker were divorced in Arizona, after which Kelisa relocated to Montana with the parties’ two children. Kelisa later remarried, taking the surname, “Allen.” Kelisa subsequently sought to change the surnames of the children to Allen. The petition was granted. In the meantime, Kelisa filed a motion to suspend Justin’s contact with the children. The motion was granted, and Justin’s parenting time was suspended pending reevaluation of the custody agreement. Justin subsequently filed a complaint seeking to set aside the name changes. After the new action was assigned to a judge, Justin filed a motion for substitution, and the complaint was reassigned. The new judge sua sponte consolidated Justin’s new complaint with the name-change petition and parenting plan issues and consolidated the cases in front of the original judge. After a rehearing, the judge granted the name change. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) it determined that the Allen surname was in the best interest of the children, and (2) consolidating the case.View "Tucker v. Allen" on Justia Law

Chad Anderson and Karen Ann Anderson were married in 2003 and had four children. The parties separated in 2009. Chad later filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in which he requested primary residential custody of the children. Following a trial in 2013, the district court found that it was in the children’s best interests to remain in Karen Ann’s custody and ordered Chad to pay child support in an amount based on an average of Chad’s income for the previous three years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) considering the testimony of the children’s treating counselor to determine the children’s wishes regarding custody; and (2) determining the amount for Chad’s child support payment.View "In re Marriage of Anderson" on Justia Law