Marriage of Albrecht, 2011 MT 316

Patricia and Keith Albrecht married for nearly 17 years; Patricia petitioned for dissolution in 1999 and a temporary order of protection was issued against Keith.
A final order of protection (FOP) was issued on January 6, 2000 and later amended in 2003, requiring Keith to stay away and limiting contact with Patricia and the children.
Keith violated the FOP on multiple occasions; he was also found in contempt on several dates related to child support and fees.
Keith moved in September 2010 to dissolve the FOP, arguing he no longer posed a threat and that the FOP harmed his life, including restrictions on church attendance.
Patricia opposed dissolution, seeking to keep the FOP for her safety, and the District Court denied Keith’s motion, citing lack of Patricia’s request to terminate.
Keith appeals, arguing the District Court had authority to terminate the FOP notwithstanding Patricia’s lack of consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authority to terminate without petitioner’s request	Keith argues the court has authority to terminate under § 40-15-204(5).	Patricia agrees the court can continue or terminate, but she argues the court must consider on merits and not act solely on consent.	The district court has authority to continue or terminate the FOP; reversal and remand for merits.

Keller v. Trull, 2007 MT 108, 337 Mont. 188, 158 P.3d 439 (Mont. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard in review of protective orders (contextual reference))
Bock v. Smith, 2005 MT 40, 326 Mont. 123, 107 P.3d 488 (Mont. 2005) (discretion in handling protective orders reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Jordan v. Kalin, 2011 MT 142, 361 Mont. 50, 256 P.3d 909 (Mont. 2011) (standard of review for district court conclusions of law)
Cenex Pipeline L.L.C. v. Fly Creek Angus, Inc., 1998 MT 334, 292 Mont. 300, 971 P.2d 781 (Mont. 1998) (statutory interpretation and agency-like authority principles)