Montana reverses contested parenting-plan amendment entered without required hearing

The Montana Supreme Court reversed a district court’s amendment of a final parenting plan after finding that the court decided a contested request without the required evidentiary hearing. In In re Marriage of Handy, 2026 MT 90, the court also held that the father was entitled to examine the court-appointed counselor whose written assessments the district court relied upon. The April 28 decision returned the matter for a hearing and findings; it did not decide which parenting arrangement served the children’s best interests.

The parents’ original plan provided equal parenting time. After the mother moved from Eureka to Libby, she sought an amendment, contending that the distance made the existing schedule impractical. Both parents agreed that a change was warranted, but each sought primary residence for the children. Other disputes and submissions followed. In April 2025, the district court amended the plan as to one child, relying in part on a counselor’s letters, without conducting an evidentiary hearing on the outstanding amendment request.

The Supreme Court explained that a plausible allegation of a qualifying change in circumstances establishes adequate cause for the hearing required under Montana Code Annotated section 40-4-220(1). An earlier proceeding had not resolved the outstanding request, and the father’s failure to request a hearing at a status conference did not relieve the district court of its statutory duty. On these facts, competing written submissions did not replace an evidentiary hearing on contested issues.

The court did not resolve the counselor’s alleged conflicts or the admissibility, weight, or legal effect of her opinions on remand. The court also discussed the statutory opportunity to examine professional personnel consulted by the court and a guardian ad litem. It concluded the father had to be afforded the opportunity to examine the counselor and guardian at the hearing on remand. The court reversed the challenged order insofar as it amended the plan, vacated the amended plan, and remanded for the required hearing and findings under sections 40-4-219(1) and 40-4-212(1). The contempt ruling was not contested on appeal.

The decision concerns the procedure for a contested plan amendment. Although a parent’s move formed part of the background, the opinion did not decide the merits of the children’s best interests or establish a new relocation-notice rule. Its holding should be read in the context of the request, the existing plan, and the statutory adequate-cause requirement.