不審 FAMILY LAW MATTERS » Parenting Plan Evaluations

Using Initials for Parents’ Names

Administrator — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 04:03:41 +0000

In two recent cases, a parenting plan case and a divorce case with children, the Montana Supreme Court has required the parties to replace the parents’ names with initials. In Re the Marriage of R.M. and M.M. 2009 MT 52N the Court refused to allow the Appellant’s brief to be filed until the Appellant substituted initials for the names of the parents. Section 4.50 (c)(3) of the Rules for Privacy and Public Access to Court Records in Montana (“Access Rules”) requires children’s names to be redacted from published court records. But there is no mention in the Access Rules of redacting the names of any adults. In its Order issued August 11, 2008 sending the Appellant’s brief back, the Court acknowledged this, but declared “… we realize that the Rules do not require the names of the adult parties to be protected from public access; however, in order to fully comply with Section 4.50(c)(3), it is generally necessary that initials be used in place of the parents’ names as well.”

Further checking confirmed that the Court had returned an Appellee’s Brief in a parenting plan case as well. In Re the Parenting of K.A.R., a Minor, D.R., A.R. and J.M.R., Petitioners and Appellees, and D.E.R. Respondent and Appellant, 2009 MT 73N, decided March 11, 2009, the Court issued its Order returning the Appellee’s brief on July 9, 2008.

Deleting parents names in divorces and parenting plan actions will protect the identities of the children. And I am grateful the Court is obviously taking pains to protect the privacy of our most vulnerable citizens. But this new policy will create other practical problems for the litigants. For one, title companies will find it difficult to independently run title on the homes of the litigants.

Grandparents Prevail Over Long Absent Father

Administrator — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:34:23 +0000

In 1996, Mom has a child in Louisiana with Dad. Dad does not know she was pregnant and does not know he is a father. Mom relinquishes custody in Louisiana to her parents, the maternal grandparents. Louisiana court issues order transferring custody to grandparents. Then grandparents, mom and child all move to Montana. In 2006, 10 years after the child’s birth, the grandparents apply for medicaid benefits for the child. Dad is contacted and child support ordered. Dad seeks custody in parenting plan proceedings now in Montana. District Court refuses to grant dad custody, ordering instead a plan that gradually introduces him to the child with supervised visits initially and then a mental health professional to monitor how that is going with the anticipation that dad will first move on to unsupervised visits in Montana and later visits in Louisiana where he still resides. Dad appealed both on the basis of inadequate findings to support the trial court rulings and on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court stating that the findings were sufficient and stating that the appellant had failed to file a motion and brief preserving the constitutional issue on appeal. The case is In Re Parenting of K.A.R. 2009 MT 73N.

Sealing of parenting plan investigative reports

Administrator — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:54:25 +0000

The reports of parenting plan investigators appointed under Section 40-4-215 (4) M.C.A. must be filed as part of the court record but “… may, without objection, be sealed.” The investigator must make not only the report generated, but the underlying documents, testing results, names of everyone the investigator spoke with — upon which the report is based. The investigator has broad powers: to obtain medical records of a child (less than 16 years of age) without obtaining the parents’ or the child’s consent. This is clearly a discretionary judicial act, but no standard for ruling is expressed.

With the new Access Rules, best practice is to routinely move to seal such reports and underlying documents.

Motion to seal parenting plan interviews, reports, investigations, testimony

Administrator — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 04:00:07 +0000

Section 40-4-216 (4) M.C.A. allows a court to seal interviews, reports, investigations and hearing testimony if it finds that keeping the information secret is necessary to protect the child’s welfare. Ironically, the new Access Rules may make it far easier to seal such records — when the only alternative is internet publication.

Section 40-4-216 (3) allows the public to be barred from a parenting plan hearing if barring the public is in the best interests of the child.