Kulstad v. Maniaci, 2010 MT 248

Maniaci and Kulstad were domestic partners who jointly raised L.M. and A.M. with Maniaci designated as the adoptive parent.
Kulstad filed to dissolve the relationship and obtain a parental interest; a guardianship team and therapists were appointed; PACT program was formed.
After a 2008 bench trial, the court awarded Kulstad parental interest; Maniaci would have visitation, with a plan to revisit at a later date.
Maniaci left Montana for Tennessee in November 2009, leaving the children with Kulstad; by March 2010 Maniaci had not returned or seen the children since November 2009.
GAL and CFSD providers recommended Kulstad have residential custody; Maniaci proposed various schedules, including Tennessee placement if she moved, with limited Montana visitation.
The district court adopted a Final Parenting Plan granting Kulstad sole custody, with Maniaci’s visitation supervised in Montana until she complies with the PACT plan; a protective order restricted access to therapy notes and products.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Final Parenting Plan is supported by substantial evidence	Maniaci contends evidence was unreliable or tainted by due process issues.	Kulstad asserts plan is in children's best interest based on expert and CFSD input.	Yes; plan supported by substantial evidence and best interests.
Did CFSD evidence and cross-examination issues violate Maniaci's due process	Maniaci argues CFSD data and post-hearing letter harmed cross-examination.	Kulstad argues Maniaci had ample notice and opportunity to respond; hearing favored credibility of other witnesses.	No; due process not violated; record shows adequate notice and opportunity.
Did the trial court err in denying Maniaci access to therapy records on privacy grounds	Maniaci claims § 40-4-225, MCA, gives her absolute access to records and HIPAA preemption issues were misapplied.	Kulstad contends privacy and child protection interests justify protective orders; constitutional question avoided on appeal.	Yes; the court vacated the constitutional ruling and affirmed custody decision without deciding the statute's constitutionality; records access not outcome-determinative

Kulstad v. Maniaci, 2009 MT 326 (Mont. 2009) (prior appellate ruling detailing custody and indoctrination issues)
In re Custody of Arneson-Nelson, 307 Mont. 60 (2001 MT) (waiver of constitutional issues absent district court preservation)
In re Marriage of Shupe, 916 P.2d 744 (Mont. 1996) (standard for clearly erroneous findings in custody matters)
In re Custody of Krause, 304 Mont. 202 (2001 MT) (plenary review of constitutional questions in custody context)
In re Marriage of Carter, 63 P.3d 1124 (Mont. 2003) (discretionary custody decisions and statutory factors)
In re M.W., 310 Mont. 103 (2002 MT) (primary consideration to children's physical, mental, emotional needs)