Background
Preston and Jacqueline Bull married in January 2010 and have three daughters, born in 2012, 2016, and 2018. The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, found that Preston had engaged in a sustained pattern of physical and emotional abuse directed at both Jackie and the children throughout the marriage. The court’s findings detailed episodes of physical violence against Jackie, threatening behavior with a firearm in the children’s presence, and disturbing emotional abuse of the oldest daughter, including holding her against a wall with her feet off the ground and forcing her to look at herself in a mirror while he berated her appearance. Preston also drank heavily on a daily basis, including while solely responsible for the children’s care.
The parties separated in August 2021 and a permanent order of protection was entered in Jackie’s favor. Over the ensuing years, multiple mental health professionals were involved in the case. A parenting evaluator identified Preston’s substance abuse, unaddressed mental health needs, and high risk for future violence as serious concerns. Two successive therapeutic supervisors for Preston’s visitation sessions withdrew from the case, in part because Preston maintained he had “done nothing wrong” and grew antagonistic toward the professionals working with him. The two older children were diagnosed with PTSD and the youngest with Adjustment Disorder.
Following a two-day dissolution hearing in May 2025, the district court issued a decree awarding primary physical custody to Jackie and adopting her proposed parenting plan, which included a provision allowing the children to decline supervised visits with Preston without being required to attend. The court also ordered Preston to pay $822 per month in child support and directed the parties to split the children’s extracurricular activity costs equally, incorporating Jackie’s proposed plan by reference without independent findings on the extracurricular issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the parenting provisions of the dissolution decree and remanded solely on the extracurricular cost-sharing issue. On the custody question, the Court rejected Preston’s argument that allowing the children to decline supervised visits improperly delegated parenting-time decisions to them. The Court distinguished the case from In re Whyte, 2012 MT 45, in which a district court had delegated the annual choice of primary residence to an eleven-year-old child. Here, the district court itself made all best-interest determinations and set the supervised visitation schedule; the non-compulsion provision was a protective condition reflecting the children’s diagnosed trauma responses and the recommendations of multiple clinicians, not a delegation of judicial authority to the children.
On extracurricular costs, the Court found the equal cost-sharing provision inadequate. The decree incorporated Jackie’s proposed plan by reference without any independent findings on the issue, testimony about the activities was minimal, and the parties’ incomes were substantially different—the court had found Preston’s annual income at $62,409 and Jackie’s at $154,039 for child-support purposes. The Court held that at a minimum expenses should be divided proportionately to income, and that the record did not support the equal-split provision as entered. The Court remanded for further proceedings, with directions to make appropriate findings addressing the reasonable scope of covered activities, the parties’ relative ability to contribute, and whether a cap, advance notice or consent requirement, reasonableness limitation, or dispute-resolution mechanism is warranted.
Key Takeaways
- A parenting plan provision allowing children who suffered documented abuse and were diagnosed with PTSD to decline supervised visits does not improperly delegate custody decisions to the children under In re Whyte—it is a protective condition, not an abdication of judicial authority over parenting time.
- Extracurricular activity costs may properly be included in a child-support decree as supplemental child support needs under Montana’s Child Support Guidelines and § 40-4-234, MCA, but any allocation must be supported by findings and, at minimum, should reflect the parties’ proportionate incomes rather than a default equal split.
- Incorporating a proposed parenting plan by reference without independent findings on contested financial provisions can constitute reversible error requiring remand when the record does not support the embedded terms.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the boundary between permissibly child-sensitive parenting plans and impermissible delegation of custody decisions to minors in Montana. Practitioners representing domestic-violence survivors can point to this opinion when arguing that trauma-informed provisions—such as allowing children to pace contact with an abusive parent—are consistent with the best-interest standard and do not run afoul of In re Whyte‘s prohibition on delegating residence determinations to children.
The remand on extracurricular costs also serves as a practical reminder that courts must enter independent findings when adopting proposed parenting plans that include financial obligations beyond the standard child-support calculation. An equal cost-sharing formula that ignores a significant income disparity between the parties is vulnerable to reversal, and attorneys should ensure the record is adequately developed—with testimony on the nature, frequency, and cost of the activities—before such provisions are submitted for adoption.