Gardner v. Gardner
2014 MT 290
Mont.2014Background
- Claire Gardner (paternal grandmother) petitioned for grandparent-grandchild contact with her two minor grandchildren after the father (Paul) died; hearing held in Yellowstone County District Court.
- Angela Gardner (mother) is a fit parent, does not oppose contact generally but objected to extended summer visits at Claire’s Washington home.
- District Court ordered weekly phone contact, occasional weekend visits in Billings, and two weeks each summer in Washington; Claire to pay travel and give advance notice.
- Evidence showed a long, previously warm relationship: Claire provided childcare when children were young and the children know her as “Meema.”
- Mother raised concerns about Claire’s prescription pain medication, physical ability to care for children (including one child with ADHD), and the children’s young ages for extended out-of-state stays.
- Court found most contact appropriate and in children’s best interests but appellate review addresses whether extended out-of-state visitation was granted over mother’s statutory presumption of deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Claire) | Defendant's Argument (Angela) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court misapplied the grandparent-contact statute by granting visitation over the objection of the fit mother | Claire argued extended summer visits are in the children’s best interests and rebut the presumption favoring the mother | Angela argued the statute requires deference to a fit parent’s wishes; she objects to extended out-of-state visits due to Claire’s medication, age of children, and special needs of one child | Affirmed in part: court applied statute correctly overall but reversed as to extended Washington visits—Claire failed to rebut presumption for those visits; those provisions remanded/stricken |
| Whether the court erred by inserting parenting-plan rights/duties into the grandparent contact plan | Claire implied the plan’s provisions were appropriate to ensure communication and care during visits | Angela argued the court improperly used parenting-plan standards and conferred parental decision-making powers on Claire | Affirmed: although parenting-plan language appeared, the court’s order implemented grandparent-contact statutory objectives and did not grant decision-making power to Claire |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental decisionmaking presumption limits third-party visitation statutes that ignore parent’s wishes)
- Polasek v. Omura, 136 P.3d 519 (Mont. 2006) (Montana grandparent-contact statute construed to align with Troxel’s parental-presumption framework)
- Snyder v. Spaulding, 235 P.3d 578 (Mont. 2010) (distinguishes parenting-plan rights from grandparent-contact orders; parenting-plan standards are inappropriate for grandparent contact)