Marriage of Patterson
2017 MT 231N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Marriage dissolved by Fourth Judicial District Court (Missoula County) on June 1, 2010; lengthy post-decree litigation with extensive docket activity and multiple prior failed pro se appeals by Josh Patterson.
- District Court found Josh repeatedly failed to comply with discovery and court orders, filed inappropriate pleadings, and multiplied proceedings unreasonably, prompting sanctions and attorney-fee awards to Shannon.
- Evidence showed Josh engaged in sustained denigration of Shannon to the children (WP and CP), including social-media posts, text messages, and attempts to introduce sexually explicit and other inflammatory material into the case; court found this conduct amounted to parental alienation.
- Based on findings of significant parental alienation, the District Court placed the younger child (C.P.) primarily in Shannon’s sole custodial care while awarding custody of the other child (W.P.) to Josh; parenting time for Josh remained limited.
- District Court awarded attorney fees to Shannon under the parties’ settlement terms and § 37-61-421, MCA, finding Josh’s conduct unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson's Argument | Shannon's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody/parental alienation — whether sole custody to Shannon for C.P. was erroneous | District Court’s findings of parental alienation and resulting sole-custodian placement are unsupported and infringed parental rights | Court’s findings are supported by record showing active alienation and misconduct; best interests of child require custodial shift | Affirmed: findings not clearly erroneous; custody awarded to Shannon as sole custodian (with parenting time allowed) |
| Attorney fees — whether fee awards were based on erroneous facts or improper | Fee awards rely on erroneous factual findings; amount unjustified | Fees were warranted because Patterson’s filings and noncompliance multiplied litigation; fee-shifting authorized by settlement and § 37-61-421, MCA | Affirmed: fee awards supported by record and statute |
| Free speech/social media restrictions — whether court impermissibly curtailed Patterson’s speech | Restrictions punish protected speech and exceed permissible limits | State interest in protecting minor children from exposure to denigrating/sexual content is compelling; restriction narrowly tailored to speech accessible to children | Affirmed: restrictions valid given narrow scope and children’s exposure |
| Constitutional parental-rights claim — whether award infringed fundamental parental rights without proper statutory procedure | Award of custody infringes parenting rights | District Court followed the applicable procedures; Patterson did not raise a procedural challenge to statutory framework; limitation of rights resulted from his own conduct contrary to children’s best interests | Not properly raised as constitutional claim; in any event, no violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S.T., 341 Mont. 176, 176 P.3d 1054 (2008) (standard for reviewing whether district court findings are clearly erroneous)
- State v. Lance, 222 Mont. 92, 721 P.2d 1258 (1986) (recognizing circumstances where speech may be curtailed to advance a significant state interest)
- City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984) (First Amendment limits and permitted restrictions on speech)
- Fischer v. Fischer, 337 Mont. 122, 157 P.3d 682 (2007) (statutory procedures and standards for terminating or altering custody)