Parenting of R.W.W.
2017 MT 174N
Mont.2017Background
- Parents Trina and Walter Wolf share custody of their son R.W.W. (b. 2004); prior agreed parenting plan after 2011 divorce provided shared parenting.
- Guardian ad litem Kathleen Rock raised emergency concerns in Jan. 2014 that Trina pressured R.W.W. to make false reports about Walter; court suspended Rock and appointed Dr. Christopher Hahn to investigate.
- Dr. Hahn, Dr. Michael Butz (parenting coordinator), Dr. Hallie Banziger (child’s therapist), and Dr. Dee Woolston all evaluated or treated R.W.W.; multiple professionals found R.W.W. emotionally distressed when with Trina and safer with Walter.
- Interim plans shifted to a two-weeks-with-Walter / one-week-with-Trina rotation; evidence over time showed worsening of R.W.W.’s mental health while in Trina’s care, including suicidal ideation and statements that Trina pressured him to lie.
- After multiple hearings and reports, the District Court ordered (July–Oct. 2016) a Final Parenting Plan placing R.W.W. primarily with Walter, supervised and then limited contact with Trina, and creation of a "Professional Team" of therapists/parenting coordinator to monitor progress and recommend restoration steps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trina) | Defendant's Argument (Walter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Final Parenting Plan was supported by substantial evidence | Insufficient evidence to justify removal of unsupervised parenting; court erred | Extensive professional evaluations show child's emotional harm with Trina; change necessary | Court: substantial evidence supports findings; plan affirmed |
| Whether court’s description of Trina’s litigation as "toxic" violated First Amendment | Label punished protected litigation activity and chilled speech | Characterization reflected factual findings about harmful conduct affecting child | Court: no First Amendment violation; characterization supported by record and child-best-interest findings |
| Whether creating a Professional Team unconstitutionally delegated judicial power | Professional Team usurps court’s authority to decide parenting rights | Team makes recommendations; court retains final authority and parties may seek review | Court: no unconstitutional delegation; recommendations require court order and are reviewable |
| Admissibility/weight of experts and credibility disputes (e.g., late-disclosed expert Dr. Geffner) | Trina challenged reliance on other experts and introduced late expert to counter them | Court relied on long-term, first-hand evaluators (Hahn, Banziger, Butz); late expert had limited credibility | Court: credited long‑term evaluators; gave little weight to Dr. Geffner; findings supported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.J., 383 Mont. 197 (2016) (standard of review for parenting-plan amendments)
- Albrecht v. Albrecht, 311 Mont. 412 (2002) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Czapranski v. Czapranski, 314 Mont. 55 (2003) (parents’ liberty interests yield to child’s best interests in custody determinations)
- In re Marriage of Robinson, 311 Mont. 246 (2002) (best-interests analysis can outweigh parental freedoms)
- In re Brockington, 387 Mont. 260 (2017) (review standards for parenting-plan decisions)