Hood v. Hood, 282 P.3d 671

Hood v. Hood involves a Montana Supreme Court review of a district court’s denial of a motion to amend a parenting plan following a move to Utah with the children.
Tenille Hood (mother) moved with three daughters and a son to Utah after being granted primary custody; John Hood (father) sought to amend, arguing Tenille failed to fulfill educational and employment promises and that relocation harmed the children's best interests.
The district court conducted hearings, interviewed three children in chambers, and ultimately denied John’s modification petition after weighing §40-4-212, MCA factors.
The court found Tenille had been the primary residential parent, allowed continued Utah residence with visitation, and noted Tenille’s improvements (GED, college enrollment) while recognizing her underperformance relative to prior assurances.
John challenged the use of in-camera interviews, asserted lack of evidence for Utah adjustment, argued Tenille’s health records should be compelled, claimed failure to enforce a 2009 order, and contended Tenille’s credibility; the court’s findings supported maintaining the Utah arrangement.
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the district court’s discretionary decision, emphasizing the heavy burden of proof to modify custody and the court’s factual credibility determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the in-camera interview of the children proper?	Hood contends the judge erred by interviewing the children and relying on those statements.	Hood should have cross-examined witnesses; the court may interview the child in chambers under §40-4-214(1).	No error; discretion to interview allowed and record maintained.
Did the court lack evidence to find the children adjusted well in Utah?	John claims insufficient evidence to show good adjustment.	Children reported liking Utah; record shows adjustment.	Not clearly erroneous; acceptance of adjustment finding supported.
Was Tenille required to disclose medical records?	John sought records to challenge credibility and employment prospects.	Health evidence was not a controlling factor and unrelated issues do not justify modification.	Ct. correctly found mental/physical health not an issue and evenly balanced.
Did the court abuse its authority by not enforcing the 2009 order?	Tenille violated the order restricting interstate travel.	Interstate travel is a fundamental right but may be restricted to serve best interests.	No abuse; best interests and right to travel were balanced; no relocation compelled.
Was Tenille’s credibility properly evaluated?	John asserts untruthfulness undermines Tenille’s position.	Credibility is a matter for the trial court; appellate review defers to its findings.	No reversal; credibility assessments left to district court.

In re Marriage of D’Alton, 2009 MT 184 (Mont. 2009) (heavy burden to modify custody; clear findings required)
In re Marriage of Oehlke, 2002 MT 79 (Mont. 2002) (changed circumstances prerequisite to modification)
In re N.S., 2011 MT 98 (Mont. 2011) (best interests framework under § 40-4-212, MCA)
Matter of Custody of D.M.G., 1998 MT 1 (Mont. 1998) (interstate travel rights balanced against child’s best interests)
Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010) (health/other issues treated as non-factors when not impacting best interests)