In re Bessette, 434 P.3d 894

Background

Parents (Father Chad Bessette; Mother Jennifer Bessette) stipulated to an amended phased parenting plan that placed the child primarily with Father and required graduated reinstatement of Mother's parenting time under GAL supervision.
Two weeks into the phased transition, a heated exchange at a public exchange (bowling-alley incident) prompted Father to seek ex parte interim relief to suspend Mother's unsupervised contact and reauthorize the GAL.
At a show-cause hearing the GAL and other witnesses testified that the child remained traumatized by Mother’s anger; the GAL recommended anger management and supervised visitation.
The District Court orally and then in written findings suspended the prior parenting plan, ordered Mother to complete 40 hours of anger-management counseling, and limited Mother to supervised visitation pending approval for reinstatement.
Mother appealed pro se, raising four issues: adequacy of change-in-circumstances findings for the temporary emergency order, the supervised-visitation limitation, denial of referral to Family Court Services (FCS), and exclusion of a non-testifying psychologist’s report.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
1. Whether court granted/maintained emergency interim order without required change-in-circumstances findings	Court modified/suspended the parenting plan without the § 40-4-219(1) change-in-circumstances finding; bench comments indicated conduct was a "continuation" not a new change	Relief was a temporary suspension properly authorized under § 40-4-220(2)(a)(ii) and supported by the record	Court did not err: written findings and conclusions implied a sufficient change in circumstances under § 40-4-219(1) and authorized temporary relief
2. Whether limiting Mother to supervised visitation was an abuse of discretion	No explicit § 40-4-218(2) finding that unsupervised contact would endanger or significantly impair the child	Supervised visitation was warranted to protect child’s emotional health based on GAL and therapist testimony	No abuse of discretion: record and written findings sufficiently imply the required statutory basis
3. Whether denying referral to Family Court Services violated local rule	Mother argued local rule mandated referral to FCS and the court erred in denying it	Court relied on prior, unobjected-to stipulation appointing a limited-scope GAL who was already charged with monitoring; Mother had effectively waived FCS referral	No error: under the circumstances Mother had waived the mandatory-referral option by earlier agreement to a GAL who was monitoring the transition
4. Whether exclusion of a psychological report by a non-testifying evaluator was an abuse of discretion	Mother sought admission of a presumably favorable written evaluation; later elicited hearsay testimony via the GAL and argued waiver by lack of contemporaneous objection	Father objected to the written report as hearsay	No abuse of discretion: the written report was hearsay and properly excluded; subsequent testimony did not retroactively validate admission of the report

Key Cases Cited

Jacobsen v. Thomas, 333 Mont. 323, 142 P.3d 859 (Mont. 2006) (standard of review for parenting-plan modifications and district court discretion)
In re D.E., 392 Mont. 297, 423 P.3d 586 (Mont. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion and clearly erroneous standards for factual findings)
In re R.J.N., 389 Mont. 68, 403 P.3d 675 (Mont. 2017) (moving party bears heavy burden for emergency interim relief under §§ 40-4-219 and -220)
In re Marriage of Hedges, 311 Mont. 230, 53 P.3d 1273 (Mont. 2002) (distinction between final parenting plans and interim/temporary plans)
In re Marriage of Kovash, 260 Mont. 44, 858 P.2d 351 (Mont. 1993) (temporary custody orders are initial determinations and differ from final parenting plans)
In re Marriage of Allen, 237 Mont. 64, 771 P.2d 578 (Mont. 1989) (purpose and limits of interim parenting plans)
McLaughlin v. Hart, 213 Mont. 216, 690 P.2d 431 (Mont. 1984) (binding effect of locally adopted court rules)