Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

After Donald and Lora Wyrick filed for dissolution of their marriage, the district court struggled to resolve a convoluted child support arrangement that festered for nearly twenty years. Donald filed a motion for modification of child support in April 2009. Donald apparently signed an affidavit for his lawyer in October 2008 in support of the motion to modify child support, but Donald's lawyer failed to file the motion until April 2009. In December 2011, the district court determined it could not modify the amount of Donald's payments back to 2008 because Donald had failed to file his motion for modification until April 2009. The court ultimately ordered that Donald pay arrearages and concluded that he continued to owe child support. However, in an earlier order, the court declared that Donald owed no future obligation of child support to Lora and that Donald had overpaid child support. The Supreme Court (1) held that the district court lacked authority to extend the modification date to any date before April 2009, but (2) remanded the case because the district court offered no new finding of fact in its latter finding to support the change from its earlier finding. View "Wyrick v. Wyrick" on Justia Law

After the Department of Public Health and Human Services was given temporary legal custody of D.B., a youth in need of care, the Department developed a treatment plan for Father. Following twenty months of poor cooperation from Father, the Department determined it would seek termination of his parental rights. The district court terminated Father's parental rights to D.B. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Department proposed an appropriate treatment plan; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Father's behavior would be unlikely to change within a reasonable amount of time; and (3) Father lacked any basis for the Court to determine that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. View "In re D.B." on Justia Law

Gail and Ron Armstrong began raising M.M.G. when the child was approximately one year old. M.M.G.'s mother, Arrah Lane, began leaving M.M.G. with the Armstrongs for weeks at a time until M.M.G. lived primarily with the Armstrongs. From the time M.M.G. was four years old for the next six years, Lane visited the child a few times a year. When M.M.G. was ten years old, Lane informed the Armstrongs she was moving to Wyoming with the child. Armstrongs filed a petition for a parenting plan. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the Armstrongs could not week a parenting plan unless Lane's parental rights had been terminated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that if the Armstrongs could demonstrate they had established a child-parent relationship with M.M.G., the district court would have jurisdiction to consider whether to grant the Armstrongs a parental interest in M.M.G. Remanded for a determination of whether the Armstrongs had established a child-parent relationship with M.M.G. View "Parenting of M.M.G." on Justia Law

C.R., D.B.J.'s step-father and guardian, appealed the termination of his guardianship of D.B.J, who was adjudicated to be a youth in need of care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not violate C.R.'s right to due process by excluding him from a show cause hearing and a permanency plan hearing; (2) the district court complied with the requirements of Mont. Code Ann. 41-3-432 by holding an initial show cause hearing nineteen days after the filing of the initial abuse and neglect petition; and (3) the district court properly removed C.R. as a guardian pursuant to the best interests of the child standard at Mont. Code Ann. 72-5-234. View "In re D.B.J." on Justia Law

Sarah Wheeldon petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to Corey Wheeldon on April 20, 2009. Following a bench trial, the district court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decree of dissolution that dissolved the parties' marriage and divided the remaining marital estate. Corey appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) based on all the evidence, the district court acted within its discretion by granting Sarah primary residential custody of the children; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its division of the parties' marital assets and liabilities. View "In re Parenting of Wheeldon" on Justia Law

The Montana Public Employees' Retirement Board (MPERB) denied death benefits to Petitioner Erene Briese (Erene) because her deceased husband, who had originally named her as his beneficiary under the Montana Sheriffs’ Retirement System (SRS), had later filed a new designation, dropping her as a beneficiary, while marital dissolution proceedings were pending. Erene appealed to the District Court, which affirmed the MPERB’s order. Erene then appealed the District Court’s order to the Supreme Court. "At a minimum," the Supreme Court agreed with those courts that have held that "a court has equitable power to order a return to the status quo when a party violating a temporary restraining order has died. Thus, in this case, the District Court should have invalidated the husband's 2006 change of beneficiaries because it was made in violation of the statutorily-mandated restraining order, and should have determined that his 2001 designation of Erene was "the most recent membership card filed with the board." View "Briese v. MPER Board" on Justia Law

Birth mother N.S. (Mother) and birth father K.R. (Father) appealed a district court order that terminated their parental rights to their four-year-old twin daughters, T.R. 1 and T.R. 2. Mother also appealed the District Court’s order denying her a new trial. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether the District Court abused its discretion by terminating Mother and Father’s parental rights; (2) whether the District Court erred in finding it was in the children’s best interests to terminate those rights; (3) whether the District Court erred in finding the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department) made reasonable efforts to reunify the family; (4) whether the District Court adequately addressed the appropriateness of the treatment plans in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Furthermore, Mother asserted that the District Court abused its discretion by denying her a new trial based on new evidence. Upon review, the Supreme Court found substantial evidence in the record to support the District Court’s findings that the conditions rendering Mother and Father unfit were unlikely to change within a reasonable time, and that it was in the best interests of the children to terminate the parental rights. "It [was] manifest on the face of the briefs and the record that there was not an abuse of discretion." View "Matter of T.R.1 and T.R.2" on Justia Law

In 2011, the State filed identical Petitions for Emergency Protective Services, Adjudication of Youths in Need of Care, and for Temporary Legal Custody in two causes involving K.H. and K.M., the daughters of Appellee K.H. (Mother). The children were two and five years old, respectively, at the time of the petition. The petition was ultimately dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. Counsel for the children appealed the dismissal. The issues before the Supreme Court were whether the children had standing to appeal the dismissal of the State's petition for their adjudication as youths in need of care, and whether the district court erred in dismissing the State's petition. Upon review of the facts of this case, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Matter of K.H. & K.M." on Justia Law

John Hood appealed a district court's decision to deny his motion to amend the parties' parenting plan. The parties had a "great deal" of difficulty working out a parenting and visitation plan though they lived n the same city for several years following their divorce. The district court concluded that it was in the children's best interests for both parents to reside in the same city, there was good reason for Tenile Hood to move to Utah with her parents so that the children would have care while Tenile completed her education and got a job. The court stated that as of the hearing, Tenile had no job, was on public assistance and was not in school, and that if she continued that lifestyle, she should remain in Montana. The court then adopted Tenile's proposed parenting plan, but that it should be modified from time to time to provide for additional reasonable visitation. John began filing motions to hold Tenile in contempt of court regarding the parenting plan contending she failed to abide by it, and that she continued to frustrate his contact with the children. After a year, he alleged Tenile failed to complete her education, failed to get a job and failed to enroll in college. Tenile refuted these allegations. The district court determined that because Tenile had always been the primary residential parent, she should continue to be the residential custodian. The court denied John's motion to amend. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined John failed to meet his burden of proof that the children's best interests would be better served by requiring Tenile to relocate to Montana or by granting primary physical custody to John. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's order. View "Hood v. Hood" on Justia Law

R.T. was born in 2009; his mother was killed in a car accident a year later. R.T.'s biological father was a minor at the time of the mother's death, and was living in a halfway house. R.T.'s maternal grandfather petitioned for guardianship/conservatorship of R.T. A year after the guardianship/conservatorship was granted, R.T.'s maternal grandmother (then living in Hawai'i) petitioned to be substituted as R.T.'s guardian/conservator, claiming it was not in R.T.'s best interest to remain in the grandfather's care because he was exposed to second-hand cigarette and marijuana smoke within the grandfather's home. She further alleged that R.T.'s developmental needs were not being met because the child was always left with babysitters. A hearing was held on the grandmother's petition, and the district court eventually granted the grandmother's petition. The grandfather appealed, arguing that R.T.'s father's parental rights were not terminated and therefore the district court ruled in error. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court's decision and found the record supported the court's conclusion. View "In re R.T. a Minor" on Justia Law