No. 05-115 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2005 MT 326N

__________________________________________ IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SUE ANNE TANNER WORKMAN, Petitioner and Appellant,

v. CLAYTON DALE WORKMAN, Respondent and Respondent.

__________________________________________ APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, Cause No. DR 2001-412 The Honorable John W. Larson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Christopher Daly, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Clayton Workman (pro se), Missoula, Montana

__________________________________________ Submitted on Briefs: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 20, 2005 Filed:

Clerk2 Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Para graph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme C ourt cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of nonc itable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Sue Workman (Sue) appeals from that por tion of the amended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution i ssued by the Fourth Judi cial District Court, Missoula County, regarding the primary resi dential custody of the children with her husband, Clayton Dale Workman (Clayton). Sue’s challenge focuses on the alleged deficiencies in the recommendations and report prepared by the gua rdian ad litem and the District Court in accepting the guard ian ad litem’s recommendations. ¶3 The parenting plan adopted by the Distri ct Court provides that Clayton should have primary residential custody of the child ren. The children should reside during the school year with Clayton while attending Po tomac School. Sue re tains visitation every other weekend, except January through Marc h, during which she w ill have one weekend per month due to the dangers of traveling on the highway during these winter months. The parenting plan also grants Sue visitation the full three days of every other three-day legal holiday and one-half of all summer with the two younger children and summer visitation as requested by the oldest child. ¶4 We review decisions of a di strict court involving paren ting issues under an abuse of discretion standard. Czapranski v. Czapranski , 2003 MT 14, ¶ 10, 314 Mont. 55, ¶ 10,3 63 P.3d 499, ¶ 10. When re viewing the court’s discretiona ry decision, we review its findings of fact and determine whet her they are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Fishbaugh , 2002 MT 175, ¶ 19, 310 Mont. 5 19, ¶ 19, 52 P.3d 395, ¶ 19. ¶5 The briefs and the record presented indi cate that settled Montana law controls the outcome and the District Court correctly app lied this settled law. The District Court appointed a guardian ad litem as authorized under § 40-4-205, MCA, to represent the interests of the minor children in this proceeding. Nothing in the record indicates that the District Court abused its discretion in re lying upon the recommendations of the guardian ad litem and in adopting these recommendations in its proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. We a ffirm the District Court. ¶6 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions.

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS

We Concur: /S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ JAMES C. NELSON /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART