Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mother and Father were married in California when Child was born. They subsequently divorced, and the parties agreed to a parenting plan that was approved by a California court. That agreement specified that Father did not have to pay any child support. The California court adopted that provision as part of its final order. When Child was approximately two years old, Mother moved to Montana and married Petitioner. Four years later, Petitioner filed a petition seeking to terminate Father’s parental rights so that Petitioner could adopt Child. The sole basis for the petition was that Father was an unfit parent for failure to pay child support. The district court concluded that there was no basis for terminating Father’s parental rights and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) giving full faith and credit to the parenting plan and child support order entered by the California court; and (2) refusing to terminate the parental rights of Father. View "In re Adoption of P.T.H." on Justia Law

In 2011, Wife petitioned to dissolve her marriage with Husband. In 2014, the district court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered a decree of dissolution dissolving the parties’ marriage and dividing the marital property. Husband appealed, challenging the district court’s apportionment of the marital estate. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dissolution of the marriage of the parties but reversed and remanded for a more equitable apportionment of the marital estate, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to achieve an equitable distribution of the marital estate; and (2) the court’s award constituted an abuse of discretion resulting in substantial injustice to Husband. View "In re Marriage of Trusler" on Justia Law

After a termination hearing, the district court terminated Mother’s parental rights to her five minor children, who had been adjudicated as youths in need of care. The district court concluded that Mother’s conduct or condition that made her an unfit parent was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not misapprehend the effect of the evidence in reaching its conclusion that Mother was unlikely to change within a reasonable time; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights. View "In re C.M." 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