Matter of T.B. L.B. H.B. K.B.
2017 MT 147N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Grandparents seek grandparent/extended family visitation with the four children after the parents’ divorce and the father’s death; Burke is the mother and the parental fitness is not at issue.
- District Court treated Burke’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and granted SJ in Burke’s favor after submissions.
- Statute 40-9-102 MCA creates a presumption in favor of the parent’s wishes when the parent is fit; the burden shifts to the petitioner to show by clear and convincing evidence that contact is in the child’s best interests.
- Grandparents argue substantial prior relationship with the children and that Burke’s decision denying visitation is not in the children’s best interests.
- Court notes this as memorandum decision and reviews de novo, treating the complaint in the light most favorable to Grandparents; decision rests on statutory standard rather than factual overreach.
- Ultimately, the Court affirms because Grandparents failed to overcome the parental presumption with clear and convincing evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in converting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment. | Grandparents contend the conversion allowed SJ to bypass proper dismissal analysis. | Burke maintains the court could resolve on the record as converted. | Conversion error; reviewed as if dismissal motion only. |
| Whether the grandparents stated a claim to override the parental presumption. | Presumption should be overcome by facts showing best interests. | No sufficient facts to overcome presumption. | Grandparents failed to overcome the parental presumption. |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence was shown that visitation is in the children’s best interests. | Evidence demonstrates a strong grandparent-child bond and past involvement. | Past contact does not equal best interests sufficient to override presumption. | Not met; standard not satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. City of Missoula, 354 Mont. 1, 221 P.3d 1200 (2009 MT 417) (de novo standard for motion to dismiss; review of legality of dismissal)
- Commonwealth Edison Co. v. State, 189 Mont. 191, 615 P.2d 847 (1980) (affirmance of district court when legally correct even if reasoning differs)
- Glueckert v. Glueckert, 378 Mont. 507, 347 P.3d 1216 (2015 MT 107) (clear and convincing standard for overriding parental presumption)
- Guest v. McLaverty, 332 Mont. 421, 138 P.3d 812 (2006 MT 150) (well-pleaded allegations viewed in light most favorable to party)
- Snyder v. Spaulding, 357 Mont. 34, 235 P.3d 578 (2010 MT 151) (recognition of parental liberty interest)
- Smith v. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 361 Mont. 516, 260 P.3d 163 (2011 MT 216) (court may uphold district court's result despite differing reasoning)
- Hoveland v. Petaja, 252 Mont. 268, 828 P.2d 392 (1992) (standard for motion to dismiss and factual sufficiency)
- Stevens v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 358 Mont. 474, 247 P.3d 244 (2010 MT) (standard of review and application of law to facts)