In Re the Parenting of M.C.
2015 MT 57
| Mont. | 2015Background
- M.C., born in Missoula in 2012, lived with parents Brittany Pirkle (mother) and Mitchell Collie (father) until March 2013; parents never married.
- Pirkle traveled to Ohio with M.C. in March 2013 and thereafter remained in Ohio, asserting family support and employment; Collie stayed in Montana and sought to be primary caregiver.
- Collie filed in Missoula County for a parenting plan and moved to have Pirkle return M.C. to Montana; a Standing Master ordered return and Collie paid for travel but Pirkle did not comply.
- Pirkle filed a competing action in Ohio (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA); Montana court retained jurisdiction and held a parenting-plan hearing in Feb. 2014.
- District Court found the § 40-4-212 factors largely balanced but concluded Pirkle interfered with father–child contact (refused court-ordered return, failed to promote contact or exchange photos), and ordered the child reside in Montana (Collie primary) if parents remained long-distance.
- Pirkle appealed, arguing the order unconstitutionally infringed her fundamental right to travel; Supreme Court of Montana affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pirkle) | Defendant's Argument (Collie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ordering the child to reside in Montana violated mother's fundamental right to travel | Pirkle: Court cannot restrict her constitutional right to travel and relocate; she intended initial trip to be temporary and has family support/employment in Ohio | Collie: State interest in child’s best interests and maintaining frequent/continuous parent contact can justify limiting relocation when mother’s conduct impedes father–child relationship | Held: No violation — restriction justified by compelling state interest in child’s best interests given case-specific proof mother interfered with father’s contact; parenting plan affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (recognizing freedom to travel as a fundamental right)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972) (restrictions on travel invoke compelling-state-interest review)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (discussed in relation to Shapiro; overruled on other grounds)
- In re Marriage of Cole, 224 Mont. 207 (Mont. 1986) (balancing custodial parent’s travel rights against child’s best interests)
- In re Custody of D.M.G., 287 Mont. 120 (Mont. 1998) (requiring case-specific proof before restricting travel for child’s best interests)
- Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 356 Mont. 218 (Mont. 2010) (parental move cannot be presumed against child’s best interests absent willful efforts to frustrate contact)
- In re Chamberlin, 362 Mont. 226 (Mont. 2011) (long-distance parenting may justify naming local parent as primary when they best facilitate contact)