Marriage of Mills
2017 MT 319N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Laurel and Eric Mills divorced after one child, O.J.M. (b. 2010); parties previously entered a Stipulated Final Parenting Plan approved by the District Court.
- In March 2015 O.J.M. underwent a bone marrow transplant in Minnesota and was diagnosed with a rare genetic disorder requiring ongoing, complex medical care; Laurel remained in Minnesota as primary caregiver.
- Laurel moved to amend the parenting plan in January 2016 citing a substantial change in circumstances (child’s serious medical condition and concerns about Eric’s relapse/addiction among other issues).
- The District Court issued a March 2016 temporary order restricting Eric’s contact (supervised visitation, drug testing, psychological evaluation, BMT cleaning protocols) and ordered mediation and an evidentiary hearing.
- Following mediation failure, the District Court held a July 2016 hearing and in August 2016 adopted an Amended Parenting Plan largely based on Eric’s proposed plan; Laurel appealed.
- The Montana Supreme Court reviewed whether the District Court’s findings were clearly erroneous or its modifications an abuse of discretion and affirmed most changes but reversed several specific amendments unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District Court abused discretion in adopting Amended Parenting Plan after changed circumstances | Laurel: Court should favor the Stipulated Plan and not adopt Eric’s proposed plan verbatim; many changes lacked record support | Eric: Changed facts (child’s medical needs; his attempts to comply) justified revised terms for child’s best interests | Court: Generally did not abuse discretion; threshold changed-circumstances was conceded and many modifications were supported — affirmed in large part |
| Verification and monitoring of Eric’s mental-health and substance-abuse treatment; consequences for relapse | Laurel: Court should require verifiable treatment records, ongoing monitoring, and explicit consequences for relapse to protect child | Eric: Existing provisions (testing, evaluation, supervised visits) addressed concerns | Court: Court’s broader changes upheld where supported; but specific requests for additional verification/consequences were not all adopted; overall monitoring provisions largely sustained |
| Financial responsibilities: health insurance, medical expenses, child support duration, extracurricular cost-sharing | Laurel: Changes shifted burdens to her (health insurance/medical costs, child support recalculation, mandatory cost split) contrary to prior agreement | Eric: New allocations reflect best interests given custody/parenting changes and current circumstances | Court: Reversed those specific modifications — record did not support shifting insurance/medical expense burden, changing child support termination to CSED recalculation, or converting reasonable-effort sharing to mandatory split |
| Mutual Respect / alcohol restriction and related social restrictions | Laurel: New Paragraph 20(h) singles her out (prohibits her from drinking while child is in her care and restricts attendance at gatherings where adults may drink), excessively restrictive | Eric: Restrictions protect child from exposure to alcohol/drugs given medical vulnerability | Court: Reversed the change as to Laurel — record did not support that specific prohibition as imposed |
| Inclusion of Paragraph 19 and Paragraph 19(f) concerning management of child’s estate | Laurel: New paragraph unnecessary and overbroad; not supported by record | Eric: Provision provides clarity about estate management if estate exists | Court: Reversed addition of Paragraph 19 and 19(f) — not supported by record |
| Deletion of requirement that Eric obtain $500,000 life insurance naming child beneficiary | Laurel: Removing requirement undermines child's security | Eric: Insurance requirement was negotiable or unnecessary given circumstances | Court: Reversed deletion — record did not support removing the life-insurance requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Healy v. Healy, 384 Mont. 31, 376 P.3d 99 (Mont. 2016) (standard of review for district court findings in parenting plans)
- In re Marriage of Oehlke, 309 Mont. 254, 46 P.3d 49 (Mont. 2002) (review standards for parenting-plan findings)
- In re Marriage of D'Alton, 351 Mont. 51, 209 P.3d 251 (Mont. 2009) (requirements to modify a parenting plan after changed circumstances)
- Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 356 Mont. 218, 232 P.3d 888 (Mont. 2010) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Tummarello, 363 Mont. 387, 270 P.3d 28 (Mont. 2012) (deference to district court’s parenting decisions)
- Reinoehl v. Perry, 213 Mont. 479, 691 P.2d 1384 (Mont. 1984) (appellate reluctance to disturb findings based on substantial conflicting evidence)
- In re Marriage of Hedges, 311 Mont. 230, 53 P.3d 1273 (Mont. 2002) (reversal warranted where record does not support relief granted)
- In re Marriage of Toavs, 311 Mont. 433, 56 P.3d 356 (Mont. 2002) (similar limits on amendment when not in child’s best interest)