In re Marriage of Guffin

232 P.3d 888, 356 Mont. 218 (2010) · Supreme Court of Montana · May 4, 2010 · No. DA 09-0444

Summary

The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed the modification of a parenting plan after Amber Guffin relocated from eastern Montana to Kalispell. The court held that the district court improperly penalized Guffin for exercising her right to travel and improperly invoked a presumption against her based solely on the relocation. The court reversed and remanded for consideration focused on the children's best interests under the applicable Montana statutes.

Holdings

  1. A parent's relocation that significantly affects the child's contact with the other parent may be considered in deciding whether to modify a parenting plan, but it cannot alone trigger the presumption that the relocating parent is acting against the child's best interests. The presumption applies only when the court also finds conduct satisfying § 40-4-219(1)(d), including a willful and consistent attempt to frustrate or deny the other parent's contact.
  2. The District Court clearly abused its discretion by focusing on Amber's decision to relocate, its timing, and her failure to comply strictly with the notice statute rather than determining the parenting arrangement that served the children's best interests.
  3. Amber's failure to strictly comply with the notice requirements of Montana Code § 40-4-217 did not bear on the fundamental determination of what parenting plan served the children's best interests under the circumstances presented.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the District Court clearly abused its discretion by modifying the parenting plan and designating Thomas as the primary residential custodial parent.
  2. Whether a parent's relocation that significantly affects the children's contact with the other parent may, without a finding of willful and consistent interference with contact, trigger the statutory presumption that the relocating parent is not acting in the children's best interests.
  3. Whether Amber's failure to strictly comply with the relocation-notice requirements affected the ultimate determination of the children's best interests.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (7)

  • In re Marriage of Guffin, 2009 MT 169, 350 Mont. 489, 209 P.3d 225(followed)
  • In re Marriage of Robison, 2002 MT 207, 311 Mont. 246, 53 P.3d 1279(followed)
  • In re Marriage of Oehlke, 2002 MT 79, 309 Mont. 254, 46 P.3d 49(followed)
  • In re S.P., C.P., H.M., J.M., K.M., and Y.M., Youths in Need of Care, 241 Mont. 190, 786 P.2d 642 (1990)(followed)
  • State v. Baker, 2004 MT 393, 325 Mont. 229, 104 P.3d 491(followed)
  • In re Marriage of Ciesluk, 113 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2005)(considered)
  • In the Matter of the Marriage of Fedorov, 228 Or. App. 50, 206 P.3d 1124 (2009)(considered)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…