Parenting of N.C.D. Minor Child
2017 MT 272N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Parents (Mother Deborah Smith, Father Timothy Davis) never married; one child N.C.D., born 2002. Parents shared informal 50/50 parenting time from 2011–2016.
- No formal parenting plan until October 2015 (interim plan); informal child support arrangements existed until temporary support ordered in Oct. 2015.
- Father filed for a parenting plan in July 2015 seeking primary residence for the child after informal arrangements deteriorated.
- District Court held hearings in June 2016, issued Findings, Conclusions, and Parenting Plan in Sept. 2016, designating Father custodial parent for statutory purposes but preserving parenting-plan rights.
- Mother appealed, raising due-process and procedure claims, child-support and discovery disputes, GAL appointment, fee awards, evidentiary rulings, and custodial designation issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motions to continue/extend/depose | Denials violated her due process and right to parent by preventing adequate preparation | Court properly managed schedule; parenting actions get priority and hearings were timely set | Court did not abuse discretion; denials reasonable and not arbitrary |
| Interim & past child support; constitutionality of §40-6-116(4)(c) | Interim support revision denied; seeks past support; contends statute unconstitutional | Interim support followed Guidelines and prior stipulation; no basis for past support given equal-sharing and prior informal arrangement | Court properly kept $198 interim support; denied past support; declined to address statute constitutionality |
| Request for variance of current child support | Seeks variance from Guidelines based on her circumstances | Guidelines-calculated amount appropriate; reasons insufficient for variance | Denial of variance upheld as within court discretion |
| Award of attorneys’ fees/costs to Mother | Requests fees and costs from Father | Court considered financial resources; both parents employed with substantial incomes | Denial of fee award affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Discovery requests for broader financial info | Seeks non-taxable income, spouse’s assets, household expenses, travel — relevant to support | Father produced sufficient financials required by Guidelines; extra requests irrelevant | Denial affirmed; additional info not necessary for Guidelines calculation |
| Admission of email correspondence | Emails irrelevant and prejudicial | Emails relevant to parenting and communications about child | Admission upheld; probative and not excluded under M.R. Evid. 403 |
| Appointment & role of Guardian ad litem (GAL) | GAL improperly given tie‑breaker/mediation-like role; blurred roles | GAL represents child’s interests; frequent disputes and child felt unsafe with Mother justified GAL authority for interim decisions | GAL appointment and limited decisional role upheld as appropriate representation of child’s interests |
| Designation of Father as custodial parent (statutory) | Designation strips Mother’s custody rights | Designation required by §40-4-234 and does not change parenting-plan rights | Designation upheld; it is statutory and did not alter parenting-plan rights |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.C., 378 Mont. 305 (review standard for parenting plan findings)
- Woerner v. Woerner, 375 Mont. 153 (appellate deference and parenting discretion)
- In re Custody of D.M.G., 287 Mont. 120 (clear-error standard explained)
- Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 356 Mont. 218 (abuse-of-discretion definition)
- In re Brockington, 387 Mont. 260 (distinguishing GAL and mediator roles)