Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

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

In 2009, Janet Gates gave birth to a daughter, BNY. Douglas Young was named on the child’s birth certificate as the child’s father and held himself out as the child’s father. In 2012, Gates sought primary residential custody of BNY. In this Silver Bow County proceeding, the parties stipulated to participate in DNA paternity testing, which indicated a “99.99% probability” that Young was BNY’s natural father. Gates subsequently brought an action in Madison County requesting that Michael Donahue undergo a paternity test to determine if Donahue was BNY’s father. Gates then moved for an order requiring Donahue to undergo a blood DNA test and Young to undergo a sterility test. The Madison County district court granted Donahue’s motion to dismiss and denied Gates’ motion for paternity and sterility tests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting Donahue’s motion to dismiss, as Gates failed to rebut the presumption of paternity in favor of Young, and judicial estoppel provided an independent and appropriate basis for the district court’s order dismissing Gates’ action. View "J.L.G. v. M.F.D." 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

In 2003, Joe Scanlon and Lona Carter-Scanlon divorced. The district court subsequently granted Joe’s motion to modify his child support obligations, concluding that Joe had been unemployed and expected to earn $52,000 at a new job, thus reducing Joe’s monthly child support obligation from $1,381 to $814 per month. In 2008, Joe filed a second motion to modify child support. Before a hearing on the motion, Joe had a child with Joann Buer. Joann opened a case with the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to obtain child support from Joe. An administrative law judge for the CSED determined that Joe received an average actual income of $24,957. In 2012, Joe filed a motion, in his case with Lona, to take judicial notice of the CSED’s income determination. After a hearing in 2013, the district court noted the CSED’s income determination but imputed income to Joe of $52,000 per year, and determined Joe’s monthly child support obligations would remain at $814 per month. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in its manner of taking judicial notice of the prior CSED determination; and (2) the district court’s calculation of Joe’s imputed income was not clearly erroneous. View "In re Marriage of Scanlon" on Justia Law

J.S., born in 1998, was an “Indian child” under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). In 2002, J.S. was adjudicated a youth in need of care, and temporary custody was granted to the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department). In 2012, the Department filed a petition for legal guardianship. Ultimately, the district court granted guardianship over J.S. to J.S.’s foster family. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State’s failure to provide notice to Father and his tribe at the outset of these proceedings did not provide a basis to overturn the district court’s ultimate guardianship order; (2) 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) did not provide a basis to overturn the district court’s award of guardianship to the foster family based on the State’s alleged failure to make “active efforts” to provide services and promote the relationship between Father and J.S.; and (3) contrary to Father’s contention, 25 U.S.C. 1912(e) did not apply to this case and did not serve to invalidate the district court’s award of guardianship. View "In re J.S." on Justia Law