# 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 ApR18 2023
BOW1,`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 urgingthe Court to deny tthe requested writ. In addition, the Court has received the District Court's April 10, 2023 order denyingRebeccah's motion to amend itsFebruary order and reaffirmingtheApril 25 hearing schedule. Thecase involvesRebeccah's 11-year-old child,who isthesubjectofa2019parenting 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 RebeccahpickedhimuponJanuary20,2023,andtookhimtoNorthDakota.. OnFebruary 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 tothewelfare ofthe child, neglectingthe child, and emotionally abusingthe child. They expressed theirbeliefthat, without immediate court interventionwhilethe action 04/18/2023

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

cause, the District Court ordered that the child be returned to the Scotts and remain in their primary careduringthependencyofthelitigation. Itordered anInterimThird-PartyParenting 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 oflawby authorizing "the taking ofa child from his mother by a person notalready lawfully declared tohaveaparent-childrelationship andparental interest." She maintains that the District Court lacksjurisdiction 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 ofthe action, it set a show-cause hearing within fourteen days ofits emergency order, which was continued atRebeccah's request. TheDistrict Court intendsto move forward withtheApril 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 thebest interests ofthe 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 hasjurisdiction 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,toall parties and counsel ofrecord intheEleventh Judicial District Court,Flathead County, Cause No. DR-19-134A, and to the Honorable Amy Eddy, presiding. DATED this ) r

—

day ofApril, 2023.f7' ../144

Justices

4