Background
Laura and Andrew Sage stipulated in October 2024 to a parenting plan for their three children that contemplated an eventual transition to approximately equal, alternating-week parenting time after conditions connected to Andrew’s criminal matter were satisfied. Subsequent developments included Andrew’s May 2025 sentencing for felony criminal endangerment and misdemeanor partner or family member assault arising from an altercation with Laura in the children’s presence, the children’s counselor’s withdrawal from her agreed role in implementing the equal-time schedule, and continuing concerns about the parties’ conflict and Andrew’s communications.
The District Court appointed a guardian ad litem, who investigated and recommended a mother-primary residential schedule, gradual increases in Andrew’s parenting time without a transition to equal time, and continued parenting-coordinator oversight. Following a contested hearing at which Andrew testified, presented evidence, and cross-examined the GAL, the court adopted an amended final parenting plan. Andrew appealed, challenging the changed-circumstances findings, the GAL report’s service six days before the hearing, and the parenting coordinator’s authority.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the District Court had sufficient findings and substantial credible evidence to amend the plan under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219. Andrew’s criminal proceedings and sentencing, the counselor’s withdrawal from the role contemplated by the original plan, and the GAL’s findings concerning ongoing conduct and communications constituted post-plan developments materially affecting the children’s circumstances. The District Court did not clearly err in finding that the contemplated equal-time schedule was not in the children’s best interests.
The Court also held that Andrew waived his challenge to the GAL report’s somewhat late service because he neither objected nor sought a continuance at the hearing and instead participated fully. Finally, the parenting-coordinator provisions did not unlawfully delegate judicial power because Montana law permits that dispute-resolution mechanism and the District Court retained ultimate review authority. The Court denied Laura’s request for appellate attorney fees and costs, denied Andrew’s pending rehearing petition concerning an earlier fee order, and declined additional fees associated with that petition.
Key Takeaways
- Post-plan criminal proceedings, a counselor’s withdrawal from an implementation role, and later GAL findings supplied sufficient changed circumstances to reconsider a stipulated parenting plan.
- A party who proceeds with a contested GAL hearing without objecting to late report service or requesting more preparation time waives that timing issue on appeal.
- A parenting coordinator may mediate or arbitrate future parenting disputes when the court retains ultimate authority to review or modify the coordinator’s decisions.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a stipulated parenting plan does not prevent later modification when new facts materially affect the children’s welfare or undermine the stipulated plan’s implementation mechanism. It also emphasizes the importance of making timely procedural objections and requesting a continuance when a GAL report is served late.
The opinion was issued as a noncitable memorandum opinion under the Montana Supreme Court’s Internal Operating Rules and does not serve as precedent.