Background
Dustin Weidenkeller (Father) and Davys Arrington share one child, A.L.W., now ten years old. Under a 2022 Stipulated Amended Final Parenting Plan, the parties exercised joint, shared parenting, with Father parenting A.L.W. approximately 130 days per year. In October 2024, Arrington filed a Notice of Intent to Move and a Motion to Amend the Parenting Plan, seeking to relocate with A.L.W. to Caldwell, Idaho, primarily to join her new husband, Taylor Arrington, who lives there. Father opposed the move and submitted his own proposed parenting plan providing that A.L.W. would remain in Montana with him as primary parent if Arrington relocated.
The Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, held a contested hearing in April 2025. The court met privately with A.L.W. in chambers and considered extensive evidence regarding both parties’ parenting histories, the child’s community ties, and the factors set forth in Montana’s parenting-plan statutes, §§ 40-4-212 and 40-4-219, MCA. On June 23, 2025, the court denied Arrington’s motion and ordered that, if she relocated to Idaho, Father’s amended parenting plan would take effect, making Father the primary residential parent while A.L.W. remained in Montana.
Arrington moved to amend the judgment and sought relief from it, arguing procedural and substantive errors. The district court denied that motion as well. Arrington then appealed, raising four main claims: abuse of discretion in adopting Father’s plan, violation of her constitutional right to travel, deficient factual findings, and error in conducting a joint hearing with a related case involving A.L.W.’s half-sibling without a formal consolidation order.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court unanimously affirmed. On the constitutional right-to-travel claim, the Court reiterated that while a parent has a constitutional right to relocate, that right does not override the competing rights of the other parent to ongoing parental contact or the child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. The district court’s order did not restrict Arrington’s ability to move; it only determined that A.L.W.’s best interests would not be served by relocating with her — a distinction the Court found dispositive.
On the statutory best-interests analysis under §§ 40-4-212 and 40-4-219, MCA, the Court found the district court’s findings were comprehensive and supported by the record. The district court had weighed A.L.W.’s strong ties to Missoula — his school, sports, church, half-brother, and extended family — against the disruption a move would cause. It credited Father’s credibility concerns about Arrington’s pattern of instability, including multiple relocations, contempt of the existing parenting plan, and exposing A.L.W. to an individual with a documented history of violence. The Supreme Court declined to reweigh this evidence and found no clear abuse of discretion.
Regarding the fourth claimed error — the joint hearing with the related case — the Court noted the district court had not formally consolidated the cases; it merely held a joint hearing. More fundamentally, Arrington had raised no objection at the time of the hearing, and the Court declined to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal where the appellant had acquiesced in the proceedings below. The Court also left minor housekeeping disputes about travel logistics, health insurance, and communication tools to the parties and their counsel to resolve without court intervention.
Key Takeaways
- A parent’s constitutional right to travel does not automatically entitle that parent to relocate a child; courts balance this right against the nonrelocating parent’s interest in ongoing contact and the child’s best interests.
- Montana district courts have broad discretion in parenting-plan modification proceedings, and the Supreme Court will not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the trial court’s credibility determinations.
- While explicit enumeration of each statutory factor under § 40-4-219(1)(b), MCA, is preferred, failure to separately list each factor is not reversible error if the overall findings and order demonstrate the court considered the required criteria.
- Issues not raised before the district court — including objections to joint hearings — are waived on appeal, particularly where the appellant participated without objection.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the settled Montana framework governing parental relocation disputes: the relocating parent bears the burden of demonstrating that the move serves the child’s best interests, and a parent’s personal motivations for relocating — such as joining a new spouse — will not carry the day against strong evidence of a child’s community ties and the other parent’s meaningful involvement. Attorneys advising relocating parents in Montana should expect courts to scrutinize the stability of the relocating parent’s lifestyle and decision-making history alongside the logistical factors listed in § 40-4-219(1)(b), MCA.
The opinion also serves as a practical reminder that district courts, while encouraged to articulate their statutory analysis in detail, will not be reversed merely for imperfect organization of their findings — so long as the record as a whole supports the result. Note that this is a noncitable memorandum opinion under Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules and does not serve as binding precedent.