In Re the Marriage of Whyte Couvi
2012 MT 45
| Mont. | 2012Background
- Charles Whyte and Leanah Couvillion’s marriage ended in 2003; they share one child, C.A.W., born January 2000.
- A 2005 Stipulated Final Amended Parenting Plan provided the long-term schedule: Leanah with C.A.W. during school years; Charles during summers, with a switch to Charles’ primary residence in sixth grade.
- Leanah moved to amend the plan in February 2011, seeking to keep C.A.W. in Frenchtown (Leanah’s home) rather than moving him to Hamilton in sixth grade.
- The District Court held a hearing in May 2011 and amended the plan to maintain Leanah’s residence during school years, with C.A.W.’s future residential decisions to be made by yearly letter from him.
- The court’s order included a provision that C.A.W., age 11, would decide annually where he would reside, with his wishes to prevail as he aged.
- The Montana Supreme Court reversed, reinstated the original plan, and remanded for an order reflecting relief to delay the school change until seventh grade.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amendment of the parenting plan was proper under §40-4-219 | Whyte argues no change in circumstances satisfied the statutory threshold | Leanah argues changed circumstances, including child’s needs and school transition, justify amendment | Amendment not supported; threshold not met |
| Whether the district court improperly delegated to C.A.W. the power to determine future residential arrangements | Whyte contends the court improperly delegated custodial decision-making to the child | Leanah argues child’s preferences may be considered | Delegation reversed; child cannot determine future plans; court must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of D'Alton, 351 Mont. 51, 209 P.3d 251 (Mont. 2009) (changed-circumstances threshold not satisfied; age alone insufficient)
- Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 356 Mont. 218, 232 P.3d 888 (Mont. 2010) (implied findings and best interests framework in modification)
- Robison v. Robison, 311 Mont. 246, 53 P.3d 1279 (Mont. 2002) (standard for evaluating custody modification preserved)
- Carter v. Carter, 314 Mont. 84, 63 P.3d 1124 (Mont. 2003) (consideration of the child’s best interests in modifications)
- D'Alton v. D'Alton, 351 Mont. 51, 209 P.3d 251 (Mont. 2009) (emphasizes threshold changed circumstances for amending parenting plans)