Summary
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a District Court parenting plan granting Alexandra Lea Plotner primary custody of the parties’ two minor children. The Court held that the District Court’s factual findings, best-interests determination, and evidentiary rulings were supported and properly exercised, and it denied the request for appellate attorney-fee sanctions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion in entering its findings of fact.
- Whether the District Court erred in determining the best interests of the children.
- Whether the District Court abused its discretion in admitting evidence allegedly not produced in discovery.
- Whether Alexandra was entitled to attorney's fees and sanctions for the appeal under Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 19(5).
Holdings
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion because the challenged findings were supported by substantial evidence.
- The District Court properly determined the children's best interests and did not err by adopting Alexandra's parenting plan and granting her primary custody.
- The District Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence, and Lester could not obtain appellate relief for exhibits admitted without objection or without a showing of undue prejudice.
- Alexandra was not entitled to attorney's fees or sanctions because, although the Court rejected Lester's arguments, he pursued the appeal in good faith.
Key quotations
“Pursuant to § 40-4-212, MCA, a district court must “determine the parenting plan in accordance with the best interest of the child” after considering “all relevant parenting factors.”” (¶ 11)
“While we reject Lester’s arguments, we believe that he exercised his right to appeal the decision of the District Court in good faith.” (¶ 16)
Factual background
The parties married in March 2009 and had two minor children. After separating in December 2013, they initially shared parenting on an alternating-week basis. Lester sought to continue that arrangement, while Alexandra proposed primary custody for herself with alternating weekends, holidays, and a three-week summer period for Lester. The District Court found that Lester had made disparaging communications, interfered with the children's communication with Alexandra, failed to take the children to activities, and had allowed the children to wander from a caregiver's home, and it adopted Alexandra's proposed parenting plan.
Procedural history
Lester filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and proposed continuing an alternating-week parenting arrangement. After a hearing, the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order adopting Alexandra's proposed parenting plan, which granted her primary custody. Lester appealed, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed and denied Alexandra's request for sanctions.