Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

A Montana State Representative, William W. Mercer, requested access to certain child abuse and neglect case records from the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) under a statute that allows legislators to review such records. The DPHHS provided some records but withheld others, including emails, text messages, and attorney-client privileged materials. Mercer filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the DPHHS to release the additional records.The First Judicial District Court of Lewis and Clark County granted a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring the DPHHS to provide the requested records, including those claimed to be attorney-client privileged, but imposed additional confidentiality protections. The DPHHS appealed, arguing that the District Court misinterpreted the statute and that the attorney-client privilege should exempt certain records from disclosure.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court affirmed the District Court's decision, holding that the plain language of the statute required the disclosure of the records to the legislator, subject to confidentiality protections. The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction, as Mercer demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of equities tipped in his favor, and that the injunction was in the public interest. The court emphasized that the preliminary injunction did not resolve the ultimate merits of the case, which would be determined in further proceedings. View "Mercer v. Department of Public Health and Human Services" on Justia Law

The case involves the father of two children, L.B. and R.B., who were removed from their parents' care in December 2021 due to homelessness, domestic violence, and the father's alcoholism. The children were placed in foster care with R.D., a caregiver selected by Child Protective Services (CPS). Despite multiple efforts by CPS to assist the family, including providing basic necessities and facilitating treatment programs for the father, he was unable to maintain sobriety or stable housing.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, granted emergency protective services and later adjudicated the children as youths in need of care (YINC). The court granted temporary legal custody to the Department of Public Health and Human Services. After nineteen months, the Department requested a permanency plan for state-sponsored guardianship. The District Court held a hearing and, based on testimony from various experts, ordered the children to be placed with R.D. as their legal guardian.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The father argued that the Department failed to provide sufficient active efforts to help him overcome barriers to sobriety and housing. However, the court found that the Department made extensive efforts, including providing housing assistance, treatment referrals, and facilitating family engagement meetings. The court noted that the father's lack of participation and refusal of treatment options contributed to the failure of reunification efforts.The Supreme Court held that the Department made sufficient active efforts to reunite the father with his children and that further efforts would be unproductive and not in the children's best interests. The court affirmed the District Court's decision to grant legal guardianship to R.D. View "In re Matter of R.B." on Justia Law

Richard DuCharme and Jennifer Brick are the parents of two minor children, S.D. and B.D. Their dissolution began in 2017, and since then, Brick has repeatedly refused to honor court-ordered parenting time. In June 2023, after a dispute about summer parenting time, Brick emailed S.D. claiming her father was keeping the girls illegally. Brick's behavior escalated to physical violence when she grabbed S.D.'s hair and punched her. S.D. escaped and reported the incident to the Bozeman Public Safety Center. Brick was charged with Partner Family Member Assault, and DuCharme filed for a temporary order of protection for both children.The District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, granted a temporary restraining order and later held a hearing where S.D. testified about ongoing emotional abuse and the physical assault. The court granted a two-year Order of Protection for S.D. and a six-month Order of Protection for B.D., which was later extended indefinitely due to Brick's violation of the order.Brick appealed, presenting eight issues, including judicial bias, legal entrapment, misuse of court orders, due process violations, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and erroneous sentencing. The Montana Supreme Court addressed three main categories: the Order of Protection, related proceedings, and judicial bias.The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Order of Protection based on the history of emotional and physical abuse. Brick's arguments related to criminal proceedings and the parenting matter were not considered as they were not properly before the court. The court also rejected Brick's claim of judicial bias, noting that adverse rulings alone do not constitute bias.The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's decision. View "Ducharme v. Brick" on Justia Law

David Rodman Ash petitioned to dissolve his marriage with Bree Elliot in September 2022. The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, issued a decree dissolving the marriage and dividing the marital property on July 13, 2023. Ash moved to amend the decree, arguing that the court had disregarded his labor contributions in constructing a shared home and his poor health and limited future income prospects. The District Court denied his motion on October 2, 2023. Ash appealed the allocation of the marital assets.The District Court awarded 80% of the value of the Eastman Property to Elliot and 20% to Ash. Ash argued that the distribution was inequitable, given his significant nonmonetary contributions to the construction and maintenance of the marital properties. The court found that Elliot had invested $1,150,000 in the Eastman Property, while Ash's interest was valued at $325,385, including his initial investment and documented cash contributions.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the District Court abused its discretion by diminishing the value of Ash's nonmonetary contributions to the marital estate. The court noted that Ash's labor in constructing the Lodge and maintaining the properties was significant and should have been considered in the distribution of the marital assets. The court also found that the District Court erred by seeking to return the parties to their premarital positions, which is not a factor under Montana law for equitable apportionment.The Supreme Court reversed the distribution of the marital assets and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "In re Marriage of Ash" on Justia Law

Dennis Schaub and Louise Schaub were married in 1980, divorced in 2010, and reunited in 2014, establishing a common law marriage. They separated again in 2017, and Louise filed for dissolution in 2018. During their first divorce, they had a property settlement agreement that heavily favored Dennis. After their second separation, the District Court awarded Dennis most of the marital assets, citing the short reconciliation period and Louise's lack of contribution to the marital estate.The Twelfth Judicial District Court initially awarded Dennis his bank accounts, real property, vehicles, and other personal property, while Louise received only her personal items. Louise appealed, and the Montana Supreme Court remanded the case, instructing the District Court to reconsider the equitable distribution of the marital estate, taking into account the factors in § 40-4-202, MCA, and the couple's long marital history.On remand, the District Court held a hearing and found that Dennis's estate was valued at $569,341.08, while Louise's was valued at $0. The court ordered Dennis to make equalization payments to Louise totaling $242,400 over fifteen years to achieve a more equitable distribution of the marital estate, with Dennis receiving 58% and Louise 42%. The court did not require Dennis to pay interest on these payments.The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision to award equalization payments, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision not to include interest on the payments, citing § 25-9-205, MCA, which mandates interest on judgments. The case was remanded to the District Court to amend the decree to include interest and correct a scrivener's error in the payment schedule. View "In re Marriage of Schaub" on Justia Law

J.F.R., an 80-year-old individual diagnosed with cognitive impairments and dementia, lives with her daughter Stephanie in Montana. A dispute arose between Stephanie and J.F.R.'s other daughter, Jana, regarding J.F.R.'s care and financial management. Jana filed a petition for the appointment of both daughters as co-guardians and co-conservators, while J.F.R. supported Stephanie's appointment as sole guardian and conservator. The District Court initially appointed both daughters as temporary co-guardians and co-conservators but later vacated this order, directing the parties to proceed with discovery.The District Court of the Third Judicial District, Granite County, held a hearing and found substantial evidence of financial mismanagement and communication issues between the daughters. The court noted that J.F.R.'s assets were being depleted rapidly and that her current advisors were insufficient to protect her financial interests. Consequently, the court appointed the Western Montana Chapter for Prevention of Elder Abuse (Western) as J.F.R.'s temporary conservator and Western, Stephanie, and Jana as temporary co-guardians.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The court held that the District Court did not err in determining that J.F.R.'s welfare required immediate action, justifying the appointment of a temporary guardian and conservator. The court also found no abuse of discretion in appointing Western, despite the statutory order of priority, as the circumstances warranted a neutral third party. Additionally, the court ruled that Western's dual role as co-guardian and conservator did not violate statutory provisions, and the appointment of a neuropsychologist for evaluation was appropriate under the circumstances. View "In re J.F.R." on Justia Law

Miriam Penado sought a temporary order of protection for herself and her two minor children in Butte-Silver Bow County Justice Court against Daniel Hunter, the children's father. The Justice Court issued a temporary ex parte order of protection and scheduled a hearing. Subsequently, Hunter filed a parenting plan petition in Gallatin County District Court and moved to remove the protection order case to that court, citing a state statute. The Justice Court transferred the case and vacated the hearing. The Gallatin County District Court then referred the case to a standing master, who set a hearing and maintained the temporary order of protection.Penado filed a motion in the Justice Court to vacate the transfer orders, which was denied. She appealed to the Gallatin County District Court, which also denied her appeal, stating that any appeal should have been made to the Butte-Silver Bow County District Court. The District Court found that Hunter had properly removed the case under the relevant statute. At the subsequent hearing, the District Court granted a one-year order of protection for Penado and allowed Hunter visitation rights.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. The court held that the removal of the temporary order of protection case to the Gallatin County District Court was proper under § 40-15-301(3), MCA, which allows either party to remove the matter to district court before or after the hearing. The court found that the statute's language and intent were to consolidate related family law matters in the district court handling the parenting plan. The court also determined that Penado's due process rights were not violated, as she had notice and the opportunity to participate in the hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's final order of protection. View "Penado v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Jesse Rehbein and Danielle Buck are the natural parents of two children, L.M.A.R. and N.R.R. In January 2018, the Department of Child and Family Services removed the children from their care due to concerns including neglect of medical and educational needs, substance abuse, and domestic violence. The children were placed with their grandparents, Doug and Annette Rehbein, who have cared for them since March 2018. Jesse and Danielle made some efforts to improve their situation, including therapy and drug testing, but the grandparents were appointed as guardians in February 2019.The Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, issued an Amended Final Parenting Plan on September 6, 2023, granting the grandparents a third-party parental interest. Jesse and Danielle objected, arguing that the court should have applied the grandparent visitation statute (§ 40-9-102, MCA) rather than the third-party parental interest statute (§ 40-4-228, MCA). The District Court found that the grandparents met the requirements under § 40-4-228, MCA, and granted them a parental interest, allowing Jesse and Danielle unsupervised visitation every other weekend.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and affirmed the District Court's decision. The Court held that the District Court correctly applied § 40-4-228, MCA, as the Montana Legislature allows grandparents to seek third-party parental status under this statute. The Court found clear and convincing evidence that Jesse and Danielle engaged in conduct contrary to the child-parent relationship and that the grandparents had established a child-parent relationship with the children. The Court also noted that the fitness of the natural parents is not a consideration under § 40-4-228, MCA, when granting a third-party parental interest. The decision to grant the grandparents a third-party parental interest was affirmed. View "In re the Parenting Plan of L.M.A.R and N.R.R." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over child support payments. Jeffery Williams, a former OB/GYN physician, was ordered by the District Court to pay $944 per child per month after it found him to be voluntarily underemployed. Williams had been earning a substantial income as a physician but was terminated from his position following a conviction for Partner/Family Member Assault. Instead of seeking further employment in the medical field, Williams decided to leave medicine and invested over $1,000,000 in two business ventures, one of which failed and the other was barely profitable. Williams appealed the District Court's decision, arguing that it was unfair to impute his previous income as a physician when determining his child support obligations.The District Court had initially ordered Williams to pay $1,110 per month in child support. However, after Williams was convicted of Partner/Family Member Assault and lost his job, the court increased the child support to $2,262 per month. Williams then requested a review of his child support obligations, and the Child Support Services Division proposed two alternative amounts based on different scenarios. The Administrative Law Judge found Williams to be voluntarily underemployed and proposed a reduction of his monthly child support obligation to $944.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision. The court found that Williams was voluntarily underemployed and had made a personal choice to leave a highly-skilled field to start a business that would potentially earn him less than one-third of his prior salary. The court held that it was appropriate to impute Williams' prior income when determining his child support obligations, as he had not provided any reasonable alternative that would provide for his child's current needs. The court also rejected Williams' argument that the District Court had erred in applying relevant statutory and legal authority. View "In re Parenting of S.J.W." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a child, R.N., who was removed from his mother's care and placed in foster care with Ben and Charissa Wagner. The Wagners had previously adopted two of the mother's other children. The Department of Public Health and Human Services was granted temporary legal custody of R.N. and ordered the mother to complete a treatment plan. The Department later filed a petition to terminate the mother's parental rights due to her failure to complete the treatment plan and alleged abandonment of R.N. However, the mother began to engage with the Department and made positive changes, leading to the Department's shift from termination to reunification.The Wagners, unhappy with the Department's change of stance, filed a motion to intervene, asserting that it was appropriate under M. R. Civ. P. 24 and § 41-3-422(9)(b), MCA. The District Court granted the Wagners' intervention motion, despite objections from the mother, the Department, and the guardian ad litem. The Wagners then filed a motion seeking an order for R.N. to be immediately placed in their care and for the Department to pursue termination of the mother's parental rights. The District Court did not set a hearing or issue a determination on the Wagners' motion. The Department filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the District Court granted.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court's decision to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court found that the District Court had misinterpreted the law when it allowed the Wagners to intervene. The court also ruled that the Wagners did not have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of R.N. because the mother's rights had not been terminated. Furthermore, the court held that neither the District Court nor the Supreme Court had the authority to order or compel the Department to refile and prosecute its petition for termination. View "In re R.N." on Justia Law