In Re the Parenting of N.M.V.
2016 MT 322
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Dustin Cross and Erin Verploegen dated; Verploegen is the biological mother of minor child N.M.V.; the biological father Roger Gonzales has had no contact and is absent.
- Cross lived with Verploegen and the child beginning in 2003; Verploegen retained decision-making for the child’s care and paid most child-related expenses.
- After moving in 2004, Cross increased his involvement (pickup, reading, some discipline), and Verploegen later paid rent to Cross while continuing primary caretaking and expenses.
- Cross and Verploegen discussed marriage and possible adoption but separated in 2009; Verploegen and the child moved to Havre.
- In February 2011 Cross petitioned under § 40-4-228(2), MCA, seeking a parental interest as a nonparent; the District Court denied the parental-interest claim but granted visitation under § 40-4-228(3).
- Cross appealed, arguing Verploegen ceded parental authority and that the child’s father’s absence satisfied the statutory "conduct contrary to the child-parent relationship" element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Cross a parental interest under § 40-4-228(2), MCA | Cross: Verploegen ceded parental authority to him (so she acted contrary to the child-parent relationship) and Gonzales’s absence also satisfies the statutory element | Verploegen: She retained decision-making authority and financial responsibility; she did not intend Cross to be a co-parent; Gonzales’s status is not controlling in this proceeding | Court: Affirmed. Substantial evidence showed Verploegen did not cede parental authority; Gonzales’s absence is irrelevant here; denial of parental interest was not an abuse of discretion; visitation was properly awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Kulstad v. Maniaci, 220 P.3d 595 (Mont. 2009) (upholding nonparent parental-interest award where a parent repeatedly acted contrary to the child-parent relationship in a long-term co-parenting context)
- In re A.P.P., 251 P.3d 127 (Mont. 2011) (standard that district court rulings under § 40-4-228(2) are discretionary and reviewed for abuse of discretion)