Background
Robert Holman, the father of the girlfriend of 15-year-old B.H., petitioned for guardianship of B.H. in August 2025 in Lincoln County, Montana. B.H.’s father was deceased, and the teenager had been living in Holman’s home for approximately a year and a half. Following a December 2025 hearing at which all parties appeared pro se, the Nineteenth Judicial District Court entered an Order Continuing Temporary Guardianship on December 19, 2025.
The district court found that B.H. consented to the guardianship and was welcome and well cared for in Holman’s home. The court also found that B.H.’s biological mother, Terrah Messick, did not oppose guardianship as such but objected to Holman specifically as guardian. Critically, the court found that Messick admitted she was unable to parent B.H. — he had repeatedly run away, refused to attend school, engaged in destructive behavior, and was regularly involved with juvenile probation while in her custody.
The court also noted significant concerns about B.H.’s exposure to Messick’s current partner, who had recently been released from incarceration, and found that Messick had failed to financially support B.H. despite apparently receiving benefits on his behalf. Messick appealed the order pro se. No response brief was filed by Holman.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the district court’s Order Continuing Temporary Guardianship. The court found that Messick failed to carry her burden on appeal because her opening brief presented no legal argument, analysis, or supporting authority demonstrating that the district court erred in its findings of fact or conclusions of law. Instead, she attached the district court’s order and annotated sections she disputed with the notation “not true,” which the Supreme Court found legally insufficient.
The court further noted that Messick failed to file transcripts of the relevant district court hearings, leaving the appellate court without a record to review for alleged error. The court reiterated the well-settled Montana principle that it will not develop arguments for parties, locate supporting authorities on their behalf, or consider unsupported issues on appeal. Because the appeal was controlled by settled law and clear application of applicable standards of review, the court issued the decision as a noncitable memorandum opinion.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant who fails to provide legal argument, analysis, or supporting authority in an opening brief cannot meet the burden of demonstrating district court error on appeal.
- Failure to file hearing transcripts with the appellate court leaves the record unreviewable and will doom an appeal that depends on challenging factual findings.
- Montana courts will not develop arguments or locate authorities for pro se appellants; the obligation to present a cognizable legal challenge rests with the party appealing.
- A district court may appoint a non-family-member as guardian when the biological parent admits inability to parent and the proposed guardian has provided stable care for the child for an extended period.
Why It Matters
This case, though noncitable under Montana’s internal rules, reinforces the high procedural bar facing pro se litigants who appeal family court orders. Simply disputing a trial court’s factual findings — without a transcript and without legal authority — is categorically insufficient to obtain appellate relief in Montana, regardless of whether the opposing party files a response brief.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder of the practical gatekeeping function of appellate procedure: courts have consistently declined to act as advocates for unrepresented parties, and the absence of a transcript alone can be fatal to an appeal centered on contested facts. Parents contesting guardianship orders should understand that an appeal requires more than disagreement with the outcome — it requires a properly assembled record and a legal theory of error.