Tubaugh v. Jackson
383 Mont. 197
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Parents: Matthew Tubaugh (father) and Stevi Jackson (mother); child C.J. born Aug. 2012. Paternity was contested, later confirmed by test; Matthew eventually petitioned for parenting time.
- Stevi lived in Belgrade, MT, worked for Head Start and accepted a job offer in Newport, Vermont; she sought to relocate with C.J. and filed a proposed parenting plan and notice of intent to relocate.
- District Court supervised reunification counseling (Chantelle Plauche); parenting time for Matthew increased over time to multi-day periods based on therapist recommendations.
- District Court adopted a final parenting plan largely favoring Stevi: primary custody to Stevi and authorization to relocate C.J. to Vermont, with expanded uninterrupted parenting time for Matthew and provisions for frequent remote contact.
- Matthew appealed, arguing (1) Stevi interfered with his early parenting time, (2) the court misstated the burden for restricting a parent’s right to travel, and (3) the relocation decision did not properly serve C.J.’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Matthew's Argument | Stevi's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stevi interfered with Matthew’s relationship with C.J. | Stevi willfully and consistently thwarted his parenting time; primary attachment arises from her interference | She did not block contact; Matthew delayed paternity testing and declined offered supervised visits | Court: finding that Stevi did not interfere is supported by substantial evidence and is not clearly erroneous |
| Proper burden when restricting a parent’s right to travel | Court required a "heavy burden"; Matthew contends only best-interest standard applies and court improperly favored Stevi’s travel rights | Travel is a fundamental right and, where restricted, the moving parent bears burden to show restriction is necessary for child’s best interest | Court: Parent seeking to restrict travel (Matthew) bears the burden to prove restriction is in child’s best interest; court applied correct standard |
| Whether relocation to Vermont is in child’s best interest | Relocation would frustrate contact and decrease meaningful parenting time | Relocation advances Stevi’s career, maintains primary attachment, provides stability, increased uninterrupted parenting periods, and remote contact options | Court: District Court thoroughly applied § 40-4-212 factors and permissibly allowed relocation; plan is in child’s best interest |
| Sufficiency of District Court findings and abuse of discretion claim | District Court misapplied facts and law, leading to improper best-interest balancing | Court made specific findings on statutory factors; judge weighed credibility and evidence within discretion | Court: Findings were not clearly erroneous; no abuse of discretion; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re the Parenting of M.C., 343 P.3d 569 (Mont. 2015) (standards for relocation and burden when restricting travel)
- In re the Marriage of Woerner, 325 P.3d 1244 (Mont. 2014) (district courts have broad discretion in parenting determinations)
- Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (U.S. 1969) (recognition of the fundamental right to travel)
- Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (U.S. 1972) (strict scrutiny/compelling state interest for travel restrictions)
- In re Marriage of Cole, 729 P.2d 1276 (Mont. 1986) (child’s best interest can justify limiting travel rights)
- In re the Parenting of N.S., 253 P.3d 863 (Mont. 2011) (trial court determines witness credibility and weight of testimony)