In Re the Parenting of R.J.N., 403 P.3d 675

Chellie and William Newman divorced in 2007; a stipulated parenting plan was entered and later amended after contested proceedings in 2013 awarding primary residential time to William.
The 2013 amendment followed findings that Chellie intended to relocate to California and engaged in conduct amounting to parental alienation that harmed Father–child relationships.
In February 2015 Chellie moved to modify the 2013 plan, supported by an affidavit stating both children (one then 15; later nearing 17) desired to live primarily with her.
William moved to dismiss for failure to plead a statutory change in circumstances; the Standing Master summarily denied Chellie’s motion and the District Court affirmed without holding an evidentiary hearing.
The core legal question: whether Chellie’s pleadings (child’s age and expressed desire) met the statutory threshold to require a hearing on modification of the parenting plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion met the statutory threshold for an evidentiary hearing to amend a parenting plan	Chellie: one child is ≥14 and both children desire to reside with mother, which warrants a hearing	William: pleadings fail to show a changed circumstance as required by §40-4-219/220; mere passage of time/age and desires are insufficient	Court: affirmed dismissal — allegations of age and wishes alone did not demonstrate a change in circumstances sufficient to require a hearing

In re Marriage of Guffin, 356 Mont. 218 (2010) (standard of review for parenting-plan modifications)
In re Marriage of D’Alton, 351 Mont. 51 (2009) (movant must file motion and supporting affidavit showing cause; aging alone generally insufficient)
In re Marriage of Whyte, 364 Mont. 219 (2012) (changed circumstances threshold required; child’s age alone not dispositive)
In re Marriage of Jacobsen, 333 Mont. 323 (2006) (court may not modify custody absent a finding of changed circumstances)
In re Marriage of Oehlke, 309 Mont. 254 (2002) (same principle regarding necessity of changed circumstances)