Mom was involved with two men. She became pregnant. She married one of them. The other was the actual biological father, although at the time of the marriage she was not sure of that. Mom and Husband separate after four years and a divorce action was filed. Father files motion to intervene and has a blood test that establishes the fact of his paternity. Mom and Husband reconcile and oppose Father’s request for visitation. The Court makes a specific finding that Father is the father, but determined that it was not in the best interests of the child for the court to establish a parental relationship.
The Father then filed a Rule 59 motion. The trial court granted the motion and reversed itself. The Supreme Court reversed the reversal on the grounds that once the trial court rules, it cannot simply change its mind without meeting the specific (and rather narrrow) grounds in Rule 59.
The trial court purported to rely upon Paternity of Adam, 273 Mont. 351 903 P2d. 207 (1995). Like Adam, the trial court refused to declare that Father had a father/child relationship. Unlike Adam, it actually made a specific finding that Father was father. It is instructive to read the relevant paragraph in Adam:
“Through the mother’s stipulation that Bob was Adam’s father, the statutory presumptions in favor of John as the biological father were rebutted. However, as pointed out by the United States Supreme Court in Lehr, that biological determination merely sets the stage for the next question: Is it in the best interest of Adam to judicially declare the father/child relationship and thereby grant Bob the prerogatives of a parent?” See Adam at page 357. In Adam, the prospect of the continued involvement of a third party intruding in this ongoing and reconciled family was determinative. And so it was in this case.
Marriage of Johnson and Johnson, and Walak, Intervenor. 2011 MT 255.
