Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2012, Mother and Father divorced. The decree of dissolution provided that the couple’s two children would reside permanently with Mother. In 2013, Mother died in a fire. The children’s maternal grandmother (Grandmother) immediately took control of the children. Father subsequently filed a petition for exclusive parental control, and Grandmother requested that she be awarded a parental interest in the children. The district court entered an order granting Father exclusive parental control and authority over the children, concluding that Grandmother had not established a parent-child relationship between her and the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s decision was supported by substantial, credible evidence. View "Hansen v. Moats" on Justia Law

After K.L. was removed from her parents’ custody, K.L. was adjudicated a youth in need of care, and the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) petitioned to terminate the parental rights of both parents. After a hearing, the district court terminated the parents’ rights to K.L. Both parents appealed the order of termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) granting the Department’s motion for an extension of temporary legal custody over K.L; (2) terminating Father’s parental rights after finding that the condition rendering Father unfit to parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (3) terminating Mother’s parental rights. View "In re K.L." on Justia Law

After the district court adjudicated Child a youth in need of care, the State filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Child was placed with Father before the termination hearing. The district court subsequently terminated Mother’s parental rights and denied Mother’s motion to dismiss the termination petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mother failed to articulate a substantive due process claim that required the State’s petition to terminate be dismissed; (2) the placement of Child with Father did not require that the State’s petition to terminate be dismissed; and (3) the State’s petition to terminate was not filed prematurely. View "In re L.V-B." on Justia Law

C.B. was adjudicated a youth in need of care and placed in foster care due to Mother’s abuse of prescription drugs. The district court ordered Mother to complete a treatment plan to deal with her substance abuse issues. The court subsequently determined that Mother had not complied with the conditions of her treatment plan and, accordingly, terminated her parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutory criteria for termination were satisfied and in terminating Mother’s parental rights because (1) Mother failed to complete her treatment plan, (2) Mother’s prescription drug abuse was unlikely to change within a reasonable time, and (3) C.B.’s best interests would be served by terminating the parent-child relationship. View "Matter of C.B." on Justia Law

Plaintiff agreed to an increase in his monthly support obligation. The increase was applied retroactively to the date the child’s mother requested the increase, which created an arrearage in Plaintiff’s account. Although Plaintiff arranged to pay off the arrearage, the State of Montana, Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) reported the arrearage to national consumer credit reporting agencies. Prospective employers subsequently rejected Plaintiff as an otherwise qualified candidate for being delinquent in his child support payments. Plaintiff filed suit against CSED for its erroneous report to the credit agencies. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s arrearage constituted a delinquency or overdue child support, but the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint must be upheld because Plaintiff did not avail himself of the statutory and administrative processes for challenging this action by CSED; and (2) the resulting injustice in this case required remand with directions that the credit reporting agencies that reported Plaintiff’s arrearage remove from their data base any reference to Plaintiff having been in arrears or delinquent in the payment of his child support obligations. View "Kenck v. State, Child Support Enforcement Div." on Justia Law

In 1997, the district court granted Adriana Lockhead a temporary order of protection against Brian Lockhead. In 1999, the court made the order permanent and served Brian with a permanent order of protection. Brian did not appeal the order. In 2012, Brian filed a motion to vacate the permanent order of protection. The trial court denied the motion. Brian appealed, raising multiple issues. The trial court affirmed, holding (1) all but one of Brian's issues on appeal were barred from appellate review because Brian filed to timely appeal and failed to raise the issues with the district court; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brian's motion to vacate the permanent order of protection, as Brian failed to prove the district court acted without conscientious judgment or in a way that exceeded the bounds of reason. View "In re Marriage of Lockhead" on Justia Law

Mother and Father were the parents of twins born in 2009. In 2011, the district court entered orders adjudicating the twins as youths in need of care. In 2012, the district court approved the Department of Public Health and Human Services' (DPHHS) permanency plan seeking termination of Mother's parental rights. Father subsequently relinquished his parental rights. After a hearing, the district court entered orders terminating Mother's parent-child relationship with the twins and awarded permanent legal custody of the children to DPHHS. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Mother's request to terminate the services of Mother's court-appointed counsel; (2) because Mother's affidavit of relinquishment was silent as to the issue of whether Mother received relinquishment counseling, the cause is remanded for a determination of whether Mother received the required counseling or whether good cause existed to waive the requirement; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Mother's request to modify the treatment plan and stay the termination hearing. View "In re B.J.T.H." on Justia Law

After the district court adjudicated A.R.B. a youth in need of care, A.R.B. was placed in foster care with a Utah family. A.R.B.'s mother (Mother), who traveled from Utah to Montana to have her baby, filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction from Montana to Utah, arguing (1) once Mother went to Utah and the Department placed A.R.B. with the Utah foster family, Montana no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act; and (2) the district court should decline to exercise jurisdiction because Utah constituted a more convenient forum. The district court denied Mother's motion to relinquish jurisdiction and terminated Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to relinquish jurisdiction in this case; and (2) the district court was within its discretion in declining Mother's request to declare Montana an inconvenient forum. View "In re A.R.B." on Justia Law

Pam, Allan, and Charles and Mary Lou Dees (the Dees) started a business, Great Falls Portables, Inc. (GFP), with Allan acting as sole manager of the business. Pam subsequently took over management. The Dees later filed a complaint against Pam, GFP, and others. A month later, Pam and Allan, who were married but separated, entered into a settlement agreement that provided that Pam would be responsible to the Dees for any obligation owed them in connection with their interest in GFP. In litigation with the Dees, Pam filed a third-party complaint against Allan, alleging (1) the Dees' complaint arose out of Allan's fraudulent activity (Count I), (2) Allan had fraudulently induced Pam to enter the agreement assigning responsibility for the Dees' interest (Count II), and (3) Allan must indemnify her from liability to the Dees (Count III). The district court granted summary judgment to Allan on all three counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that (1) Pam failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity; (2) Pam failed to show reliance on Allan's representations; and (3) Count III of Pam's complaint was dependent on and related back to Counts I and II. View "Fossen v. Fossen" on Justia Law

After Father's four children were removed from his care, the district court terminated Father's parental rights to the children, concluding that Father failed to complete several tasks in his treatment plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Father failed to preserve for review the issue of his treatment plan's appropriateness when he did not timely object to the plan; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by terminating Father's parental rights without also terminating Mother's parental rights; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that terminating Father's parental rights was in the children's best interest. View "In re T.S." on Justia Law