In Re the Marriage of Brockington & Brown
387 Mont. 260
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Parents Darin Brockington (father, U.S. Army Lt. Col.) and Deborah Brown share custody of A.E.B. (born 2000); a 2008 parenting plan gave primary residence to Deborah and summer/holiday time to Darin, with parenting time to occur at Darin’s residence wherever stationed.
- Disputes over summer visitation continued after 2010; Darin often traveled (including to Belgium and Virginia) to exercise parenting time; A.E.B. expressed a desire, after turning 14, to spend more summers in Montana.
- Deborah moved to amend the parenting plan (2014), the court appointed a GAL who recommended restricting Darin’s summer time to brief visits in Montana and eliminating mandatory phone calls; the GAL also proposed serving as ongoing dispute resolver.
- The District Court found the GAL biased toward Deborah, terminated the GAL, and amended the parenting plan (June 3, 2016) to preserve Darin’s relationship by granting four weeks in July (2016–2018), retained other spring and holiday time, and split travel costs.
- Deborah appealed the amended parenting plan; she did not deliver A.E.B. for the July visit, prompting Darin to seek contempt. After supervisory control proceedings, the District Court held Deborah in contempt (Aug. 4, 2016), ordered travel, reimbursements, and awarded fees/costs (reasonableness and amounts remained undetermined at time of appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Deborah) | Defendant's Argument (Darin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion in amending the parenting plan | Court failed to give proper weight to GAL recommendations and to A.E.B.’s wishes; court misapplied SCRA stay | Court’s findings supported: GAL biased; A.E.B.’s wishes considered but not dispositive; preserving father’s fundamental parenting interest | Court affirmed: findings not clearly erroneous; no abuse of discretion in amending plan to four weeks in July |
| Whether the contempt order was appealable as a final judgment | Contempt order should be appealable now | Contempt proceedings are independently appealable but finality requires determination of fees/costs | Appeal of contempt dismissed without prejudice because amounts for fees/costs remained undetermined (not final) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuzara v. Kuzara, 211 Mont. 43, 682 P.2d 1371 (contempt proceedings in family law are independent and district court may enforce judgment despite pending appeal)
- Steab v. Luna, 2010 MT 125, 356 Mont. 372, 233 P.3d 351 (parental right to custody is a constitutionally protected fundamental liberty interest)
- Kircher v. W. Mont. Regl. Community Mental Health Ctr., 261 Mont. 227, 861 P.2d 927 (decrees leaving matters undetermined are interlocutory, not final for appeal)
- In re Marriage of Griffin, 260 Mont. 124, 860 P.2d 78 (final decree must reserve no further questions or directions)
- In re Marriage of Everett, 2012 MT 8, 363 Mont. 296, 268 P.3d 507 (standard of review for parenting-plan amendment: factual findings reviewed for clear error; remedy for abuse of discretion)