Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Estes and Beverly Sue Estes were married in 2002. In 2015, Michael filed for dissolution. The next year, the district court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution. The decree divided the parties’ marital estate and and denied Michael maintenance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion (1) by excluding premarital property from the marital estate; (2) in apportioning the marital estate; (3) when it denied Michael’s request for maintenance; and (4) when it declined to award Michael attorney fees. View "In re Marriage of Estes" on Justia Law

Lloyd filed a petition requesting that he be appointed guardian of M.D., his mother, due to her inability to manage her own affairs. Robert and Doug, Lloyd’s brothers, opposed Lloyd’s petition and asked the court to appoint Robert as guardian for M.D. The district court found M.D. to be an incapacitated person and in need of a full guardian. The court then exercised its discretion to determine that Lloyd was best qualified to serve as M.D.’s guardian. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s appointment of Lloyd as full guardian for M.D., holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing Lloyd, rather than Robert, as full guardian for M.D. View "In re Estate of M.D." on Justia Law

Shortly after giving birth to Child, Child’s mother signed an affidavit relinquishing her parental rights and consenting to Child’s adoption by Appellants. Mother was living in Havre and Child was living with Appellants in Illinois when Appellants filed a petition in the Montana Twelfth Judicial District Court in Hill County to formally terminate Mother’s parental rights and ultimately adopt Child. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of venue jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the adoption statute did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction to consider Appellants’ petition to adopt Child and that Hill county was the proper venue to hear Appellants’ petition. View "In re Adoption of C.J.L." on Justia Law

Following a trial of the marriage dissolution proceeding between Wife and Husband, a standing master issued a report with a decree of dissolution. The master awarded Wife the family home, required Husband to pay Wife back temporary family support, required Husband to pay over $2,000 per month in child support, and awarded Wife attorney’s fees. The master also gave Wife primary residential custody of the children. Husband filed a motion for review of the standing master’s report. The district court denied the motion, concluding that Father’s objections lacked the specificity required by statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly found that Husband failed to specifically object to the master’s report as required by Mont. Code Ann. 3-5-126(2). View "In re Marriage of Taylor" on Justia Law

This appeal was part of an ongoing parenting and child support proceeding that has been before the district court for more than a decade. Mother and Father had a child together. In 2014, Mother and Father entered into the current parenting plan assigning primary physical custody of the child to Mother. The plan provided that child support shall be paid as ordered by the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED). After Mother petitioned CSED for recalculation of the child support obligation between the parties, CSED issued a final order eliminating Mother’s monthly support obligation and imposing a $679 monthly support obligation on Father. In 2015, Father moved for judicial modification of the CSED order, alleging that he lacked sufficient resources to pay $679 per month and requesting a reduction to $200 per month. The district court granted relief, concluding that Father’s change in circumstances gave justifiable reason to vary from the CSED guidelines. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while Father’s previous child support was correctly calculated under the CSED guidelines, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the CSED-determined obligation would be unjust or inappropriate. View "Myrick v. Skolrud" on Justia Law

Child was adjudicated a youth in need of care. Temporary legal custody was granted to the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division, and Child was placed with Jared and Cindy Watson. Patrick and Corinne Gilbert, who had custody of two of Child’s biological half-siblings, intervened in the case. The district court subsequently terminated Mother’s and any and all putative fathers’ parental rights and granted permanent legal custody to the Department. After a placement hearing, the district court concluded that it was in Child’s best interests to remain in her current placement with the Watsons for adoption. The Gilberts appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err approving the Department’s placement of Child with the Watsons. View "In re B.W.S." on Justia Law

Less than one year after N.M.V. was born to Erin Verploegen, Dustin Cross and Verploegen began dating. Verploegen and N.M.V. later moved into Cross’s home. Cross and Verploegen broke up several years later, and Verploegen and N.M.V. moved out. Thereafter, Cross petitioned the district court for a parenting interest in N.M.V. The district court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its ruling on Cross’s parental interest was supported by substantial credible evidence and was not an abuse of discretion. View "In re Parenting of N.M.V." on Justia Law

The district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to one of her three children after holding a final parental rights termination hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated Mother’s parental rights, as the record clearly showed that the Department of Health and Human Services engaged in reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-423(1), and the decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) Mother’s due process right was not infringed when she was without counsel. View "In re M.V.R." on Justia Law

In 2012, the district court entered a decree dissolving the marriage of John and Emily Brown. The decree incorporated by reference a separation agreement that provided a parenting plan and child support for the parties’ daughter. The parenting plan designated Emily as the primary parent. In 2014, John filed a motion to modify his child support obligation, claiming that his income and financial circumstances had changed significantly. The next year, John filed a motion to amend the parenting plan seeking increased visitation. The district court denied John’s motions without holding a hearing, concluding that John had not shown a substantial change in circumstances or provided a basis for modifying his child support obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying John’s motions to modify child support and amend the parenting plan without a hearing; and (2) Emily was not entitled to attorney’s fees associated with the appeal. View "In re Marriage of Brown" on Justia Law

The Department of Health and Human Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his two minor children, a girl and a boy. After a termination hearing at which Father failed to appear, the district court terminated Father’s parental rights, concluding that reasonable efforts made been made given the need to protect the children’s health and safety. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that the Department made reasonable efforts to prevent the necessity of removing the two children, as required by Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-423. View "In re A.G." on Justia Law