In Re App, 2011 MT 50

Brian Price is A.P.P.’s biological father; Judith Grice, A.P.P.’s mother, is deceased.
Judith’s children include Angelina and J.M.; A.P.P. is Judith’s child with Brian.
Judith and Brian divorced in 2007; Judith had primary custody and Brian had visitation rights and child support obligations.
Gerald Grice began dating Judith in 2008, moved in with the family, and married Judith in 2009; after Judith’s death, the children remained with Gerald.
Brian learned of Judith’s death and later sought to regain A.P.P.; he moved out of state with A.P.P. in 2010.
Gerald and Angelina filed in 2010 for a determination of parental interest and visitation; the District Court found Brian’s conduct contrary to the child-parent relationship, Gerald had established a child-parent relationship with A.P.P., and it was in A.P.P.’s best interests to continue the nonparent relationship; the court awarded Gerald parental rights and Angelina visitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting parental rights and visitation to a nonparent	Price argues absence of constitutional rights and insufficient nonparent grounds	Grice asserts clear statutory standards under § 40-4-228 support nonparent rights and visitation	No; court did not abuse discretion; findings supported by evidence and statute applied correctly

In re A.R.A., 277 Mont. 66, 919 P.2d 388 (1996) (distinguishable; best interests analysis not controlling where constitutionally protected parental rights at stake)
Girard v. Williams, 291 Mont. 49, 966 P.2d 1155 (1997) (standing of nonparents; different legal focus from § 40-4-228)
Kulstad v. Maniaci, 2009 MT 326, 352 Mont. 513, 220 P.3d 595 (2009) (statutory framework for parenting/visitation; constitutional validity upheld)
In re the Parenting of L.F.A., 2009 MT 363, 353 Mont. 220, 220 P.3d 391 (2009) (recognized constitutionality of § 40-4-228; supports nonparent relief)