CourtListener opinion 885737

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm

 No. 00-605

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 2001 MT 173N

 In re the Marriage of

 BETH LAUREN MORGENSTERN,

 n/k/a BETH LAUREN MORGENSTERN-KOUBA,

 Petitioner, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant,

 and

 MARK GRAMS,

 Respondent and Appellant.

 APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Flathead,

 The Honorable Stewart E. Stadler, Judge presiding.

 COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 Mark Grams (pro se), Littleton, Colorado

 For Respondent:

 Gail H. Goheen, Koch, Johnson, Weber & Goheen, PLLP, Hamilton, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: April 5, 2001
 Decided: August 23, 2001

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm (1 of 7)1/19/2007 10:48:44 AM
 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm

 Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice Jim Regnier delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating
Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent but shall be filed as a public
document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.

¶2 Mark Grams appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment
entered by the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County. Beth Lauren
Morgenstern-Kouba (formerly Beth Lauren Morgenstern) cross-appeals. The issues
presented can be summed up as one dispositive issue: Did the District Court err in its
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order?

¶3 We affirm.

 BACKGROUND

¶4 Beth Lauren Morgenstern-Kouba (formerly Beth Lauren Morgenstern) and Mark
Grams dissolved their marriage in Riverside, California, on November 9, 1992. The court
awarded the parties joint custody of their children, Jamie and Joel Morgenstern-Grams,
with physical custody awarded to Beth. The court further ordered that Mark pay $1,222.00
per month in child support. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, Mark resided in
Colorado. Beth, primary physical custodian of the children, subsequently moved to
Kalispell, Montana, in 1993.

¶5 In 1995 Beth and Mark negotiated back child support due and owing to Beth. On May
30, 1995, the matter was resolved by a payment of $2,541.50 from Mark to Beth. Because
neither party resided in California, Beth filed the California dissolution judgment as a
foreign decree in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, on September 13,

 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm (2 of 7)1/19/2007 10:48:44 AM
 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm

1995. Mark was not notified of the filing until August 1997.

¶6 Following the mailing of the notice in August 1997, Beth learned that Mark had
disappeared and was suspected of criminal activity relating to funds missing from his
former employer. On October 15, 1997, Beth sought a modification of the original
parenting plan. Notice was sent to Mark's last known address but he failed to appear. On
November 5, 1997, Beth obtained a Final Parenting Plan which substantially terminated
Mark's visitation and related rights, continued his responsibilities to provide child support
as set by the California Superior Court and required a monthly payment for medical
insurance. Although Mark had regular contact with his children prior to August 1997,
there has been no contact since then. Mark has not paid child support since September
1997.

¶7 In the Spring of 1999, Mark was arrested for federal felony criminal charges relating to
monies missing from his former employer. On October 18, 1999, Mark filed a motion pro
se to modify his child support responsibilities. Mark contended that a modification should
be retroactive to November 5, 1997, when the original California parenting plan was
modified by the District Court of Flathead County. At the time of the filing, the past due
child support owed to Beth from October 1, 1997, through October 15, 1999, totaled
$30,550.00 together with interest on that amount to May 30, 2000, of $5,051.10. The past
due medical payments from December 1, 1997, through October 18, 1999, totaled
$2,875.00 together with interest on that amount to May 30, 2000, of $483.64. The full
amount past due and owing to Beth prior to Mark's motion to modify, including interest to
the date of the District Court trial, was $38,959.74.

¶8 Trial commenced on May 30, 2000. The District Court determined that Mark's
circumstances had substantially changed and the monthly support ordered was excessive.
On June 23, 2000, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and
Order. The District Court entered judgment for unpaid child support and medical
insurance cost plus interest, and authorized a qualified domestic relations order requiring
the transfer of any pension or retirement plan held for Mark's benefit to satisfy Mark's
arrearages. The court reduced the amount to be paid monthly from $1,222.00 to $504.00
per month effective November 1, 1999. The court further concluded that, due to
uncertainties of both parties' income, the support obligation should be reviewed and
recalculated on an annual basis at the request of either party.

¶9 The District Court also implemented guidelines for reestablishment of the parental

 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm (3 of 7)1/19/2007 10:48:44 AM
 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm

relationship, requiring that reestablishment of Mark's contact with his children be
accomplished under the guidance, supervision, and schedule of a professional person
mutually chosen by Beth and Mark. Upon recommendation of the professional person,
Mark could request to reestablish parental rights as set forth in the original parenting plan
approved by the California Superior Court. The court disallowed Mark's claim for a
judgment against Beth relating to a house they co-owned in California and awarded
attorney's fees to Beth. Mark appeals and Beth cross-appeals.

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶10 We review a district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine
whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of
law are correct. We review the court's overall decision regarding modifications to child
support to determine whether the court abused its discretion. In re Marriage of Kovash
(1995), 270 Mont. 517, 521, 893 P.2d 860, 862-63.

 DISCUSSION

¶11 Did the District Court err in its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order?

¶12 Mark contends the District Court made various errors in its decision. First, Mark
argues that the District Court erred in not utilizing his proposed parenting plan which
would have required that the children spend substantially more time with Mark. Beth
contends that the District Court did not err in failing to accept Mark's proposed parenting
plan because a district court is bound to determine any parenting issues based on the best
interests of the children. We agree.

¶13 Our standard of review for a district court's award of child custody is whether the
district court's findings are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Baer, 1998 MT 29, ¶ 18,
287 Mont. 322, ¶ 18, 954 P.2d 1125, ¶ 18. When the findings are supported by substantial
credible evidence, we will affirm the district court's decision unless a clear abuse of
discretion is shown. In re Marriage of Baer, ¶ 18. A district court shall determine child
custody matters in accordance with the best interests of the child. Section 40-4-212, MCA.
Amendments to a parenting plan also are determined by the best interests of a child.
Section 40-4-219, MCA. Thus, Mark's argument that the District Court is required to
adopt his proposed custody plan fails because the District Court must ultimately look to
the best interests of the children. In addition, this Court will not normally substitute its

 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm (4 of 7)1/19/2007 10:48:44 AM
 file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-605%20Opinion.htm

judgment for that of the trier of fact concerning the \delicate\" issue of child custody