ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

OP 23-0176 

REBECCAH SCOTT, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 

FLATHEAD COUNTY, HONORABLE AMY 

EDDY, Presiding, 

Respondent. 

RILED 

ApR 1 8 2023 

BOW 1,` n Gf rdenwoccl ' 

Clarkt of Suprema Court 

State of Montana 

ORDER 

Petitioner Rebeccah Scott seeks a writ of supervisory control to reverse the 

February 14, 2023 Order Granting Third-Party Petitioners Ex Parte Emergency Third Party 

Parenting of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, in its Cause No. 

DR-19-134A. We ordered an abbreviated time for summary response in light of the 

show-cause hearing that the District Court set for April 25. In accordance with that Order, 

Janice Scott and David Scott, third-party petitioners in the underlying matter, have filed their 

response urging the Court to denyt the requested writ. In addition, the Court has received the 

District Court's April 10, 2023 order denying Rebeccah's motion to amend its February order 

and reaffirming the April 25 hearing schedule. 

The case involves Rebeccah's 11-year-old child, who is the subject of a 2019 parenting 

plan entered in the Eleventh Judicial District Court. David and Janice Scott are the child's 

maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, respectively, and have cared extensively for the 

child since he was an infant. The child was residing with them and enrolled in school until 

Rebeccah picked him up on January 20, 2023, and took him to North Dakota.. On February 14, 

the Scotts filed a petition for third-party parenting and simultaneously filed a motion for ex 

parte emergency parenting. The Scotts' affidavits asserted that Rebeccah was engaging in 

conduct harmful to the welfare of the child, neglecting the child, and emotionally abusing the 

child. They expressed their belief that, without immediate court intervention while the action 

04/18/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0176
was pending, the child could suffer irreparable harm. Based on a threshold finding of good 

cause, the District Court ordered that the child be returned to the Scotts and remain in their 

primary care during the pendency of the litigation. It ordered an Interim Third-Party Parenting 

Plan and set a hearing for two weeks later. On Rebeccah's motion, the court continued the 

hearing to April 25, 2023. 

Rebeccah seeks relief from the court's order on the ground that the District Court is 

proceeding under a mistake of law by authorizing "the taking of a child from his mother by a 

person not already lawfully declared to have a parent-child relationship and parental interest." 

She maintains that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any motion for a parenting 

plan when there has been no determination that a parent-child relationship or parenting 

interest exists. The Scotts resp6nd that they have filed an underlying petition for the 

establishment of parenting rightS- in accordance with law, and the proceeding is properly 

before the District Court. 

In its April 10 order, the District Court observed that the Scotts did not file a petition 

for grandparent-grandchild contact or visitation but a petition for third-party parental rights, 

which is now pending. The court noted that, undefstanding the importance of the action, it 

set a show-cause hearing within fourteen days of its emergency order, which was continued 

at Rebeccah's request. The District Court intends to move forward with the April 25 hearing. 

Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when 

urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the 

case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a mistake 

of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are 

involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a motion to substitute a 

judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). We determine on a case-by-case basis whether supervisory 

control is appropriate. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2011 MT 182, ¶ 5, 

361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754 (citations omitted). 

Under § 40-4-211(4)(b), MCA, a nonparent who has established a parent-child 

relationship with a child may file a petition for parenting; § 40-4-228, MCA, allows a 

2 
nonparent to establish a parental interest in a child if the nonparent shows by clear and 

convincing evidence that: 

(a) the natural parent has engaged in conduct that is contrary to the 

child-parent relationship; and 

(b) the nonparent has established with the child a child-parent 

relationship, as defined in 40-4-211, and it is in the best interests of the child to 

continue that relationship. 

Section 40-4-228(2), MCA. The Scotts filed their petition and motion under these sections. 

At this stage in the proceeding, the District Court has determined that it has jurisdiction over 

the child, § 40-4-211(2)(a), MCA, and that it entered an emergency interim third-party 

parenting plan after finding the Scotts met their initial burden under § 40-4-220(2)(a)(ii), 

MCA. We are not convinced that the District Court's order constitutes a mistake of law, 

causing a gross injustice, or that the petition raises purely legal questions. M. R. App. P. 

14(3)(a). Having reviewed the petition, the response, and the District Court's orders, we 

conclude that Rebeccah has not demonstrated threshold requirements for this Court's 

discretionary intervention in the underlying case. 

IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is 

DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for 

Petitioner, to all parties and counsel of record in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead 

County, Cause No. DR-19-134A, and to the Honorable Amy Eddy, presiding. 

DATED this ) r —day of April, 2023. 
f7' ../144 

Justices 

4