Background
Chelsey Helt and Jeremy Guess had a relationship beginning in 2019, and the couple moved from Oklahoma to Montana in May 2023 with their two young children, born in 2020 and 2022. After Helt filed a proposed parenting plan in March 2025, she petitioned for a temporary order of protection in April 2025. The Gallatin County District Court issued an ex parte temporary order the same day and set a show-cause hearing.
At the April 22, 2025 hearing, Helt testified to repeated degrading name-calling, threats of retaliation, alleged tracking and recording devices, threats of self-harm, and statements she understood as references to physical violence against her. She also testified about conduct affecting the children—that Guess became impatient when he did not take medication, that he drove unsafely with children in the car, that he told the older child Helt was “going to take him away,” and that he once held a plastic bat toward the older child in a threatening gesture. Crucially, however, Helt expressly requested only supervised visitation for the children—not elimination of Guess’s parenting contact. Her counsel agreed at the hearing that supervised contact was the appropriate framework, and the court itself summarized Helt’s position as seeking supervised contact with the children while a separate parenting plan was finalized.
Two months later, on July 7, 2025—five days after Helt filed a notice advising the court that Guess had been arrested on stalking charges—the District Court entered a three-year Final Order of Protection. The order protected Helt from all contact by Guess, but it also named the children as protected family members, placed them in Helt’s exclusive physical care, required them to reside with her “at all times,” and provided that Guess would have “no right of visitation” until parenting time was negotiated through a parenting plan. The order did not cite Montana Code Annotated § 40-15-204(4), did not find that either child was a victim of abuse, witnessed abuse, or was endangered by the environment of abuse, and did not explain why the supervised visitation framework discussed at the hearing would not adequately address the safety concerns. Guess appealed the child-related provisions only.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the order of protection as to Helt but reversed the child-related provisions and remanded. Justice Bidegaray’s opinion turned on the mandatory child-specific findings required by § 40-15-204(4), MCA: “An order of protection that restrains the respondent from contacting a minor child family member must include a finding that the minor child was a victim of abuse, a witness to abuse, or endangered by the environment of abuse.” The District Court made no such findings. Its order recited only that Helt “believes” Guess is dangerous and “believes” he is a potential flight risk—a petitioner’s subjective belief does not satisfy the statute’s requirement that the court itself make child-specific findings.
The Court also held that the District Court failed to explain why supervised visitation—the relief Helt actually requested and the court discussed at the hearing—would not adequately address the proven safety concerns. Title 40, chapter 15, MCA governs orders of protection to prevent abuse, threats, stalking, and harassment; it does not authorize a court to use a protection-order proceeding as a substitute for the parenting-plan process governed by Title 40, chapter 4, MCA. When an order of protection functionally allocates residential care and eliminates parenting contact for an indefinite period, it must be tethered to chapter 15’s protective purpose and supported by the child-specific findings the statute requires. Because those findings were absent and the court did not explain its departure from the supervised-visitation framework discussed at the hearing, the child-related provisions could not stand. On remand, the District Court may re-enter child-related provisions if it makes the findings required by § 40-15-204(4), MCA, and explains why supervised visitation or other narrower safeguards would not adequately protect the children.
Key Takeaways
- Montana Code Annotated § 40-15-204(4) is a mandatory gate: a court may not restrain a respondent’s contact with a minor family member in a protection order unless it affirmatively finds that the child was a victim of abuse, witnessed abuse, or was endangered by the environment of abuse—a petitioner’s belief about danger does not satisfy the statute.
- A district court issuing a protection order that eliminates all parenting contact must also explain why supervised visitation or other narrower protective conditions would not adequately address the proven safety concerns; an unexplained departure from the relief discussed at the hearing precludes meaningful appellate review.
- Title 40, chapter 15, MCA (orders of protection) and Title 40, chapter 4, MCA (parenting plans) are analytically distinct; a court may not use a protection-order docket to functionally decide parenting time as though it were adjudicating a parenting plan.
- The constitutional right to parent one’s children—protected by both Article II, section 17 of the Montana Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment—requires that any restriction on parenting contact in a chapter 15 proceeding remain tied to chapter 15’s protective purpose and supported by hearing-tested evidence and child-specific findings.
- The timing of a protection order matters procedurally: where a court takes a matter under advisement for months and then issues a materially more restrictive order days after post-hearing criminal allegations are filed, appellate review focuses on whether the written order rests on the hearing record and whether the departures from what was discussed at the hearing are explained.
Why It Matters
Helt v. Guess is a significant decision for Montana family law practitioners because it sharpens the distinction between what a court can do in a chapter 15 protection-order proceeding and what must be reserved for the chapter 4 parenting-plan process. Protection orders are powerful tools, and courts understandably want to protect children when abuse is alleged. But the Montana Supreme Court has now made clear that even where the evidence supports protecting the petitioner, child-related relief in a protection order requires a separate evidentiary showing and specific statutory findings that tie the restriction to the child’s own victimization, witnessing, or endangerment—not merely to the respondent’s conduct toward the other parent.
Practitioners advising respondents in protection-order proceedings should carefully monitor whether any child-related provisions are supported by the required § 40-15-204(4), MCA, findings and whether the order explains why supervised visitation was rejected in favor of total contact elimination. For petitioners’ attorneys, the case is a reminder to build a record specifically addressing each child’s own exposure to abuse or endangerment and to clearly request the narrowest relief that adequately addresses safety, so the court’s written order accurately reflects the hearing record. Courts should also issue final protection orders promptly; an extended delay followed by an unexplained expansion of restrictions creates reversal risk.