# rj ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 23-0508

BRANDY J. ABSHER (f/n/a PERSOMA),

Petitioner,

v. MONTANA FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, MUSSELSHELL COUNTY, THE HONORABLE RANDAL I. SPAULDING, PRESIDING

Respondent. 

### SEP 2 6 2023
Bowen enwood Clerk of St:rJi eme Court State of Monte na ORDER

Representing herself, Brandy J. Absher, formerly known as Brandy Persoma (Brandy), has filed a Petition for Writ of Supervisory Control or Writ of Mandate, concerning a 2016 dissolution and parenting plan proceeding. Brandy maintains that the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Musselshell County, never issued an order after a September 11, 2020 hearing on her motion to contempt. Brandy raises three issues and alleges that the District Court has failed to act on various pleadings in the last threeyears. Brandy provides several exhibits in support ofher Petition. Brandy explains that the District Court entered its Findings ofFact, Conclusions of Law, and a Final Parenting Plan (Decree) on April 16, 2020. Brandy provides that she appealedtheDecree, as a self-represented litigant, on May 15, 2020. This Court affirmed. In re the Marriage ofPersoma, No. DA 20-0277, 2021 MT 89N, 2021 Mont. LEXIS 351. Brandy believes that, due to her pro se status as a litigant in the District Court, the court has not treated her fairly. She explains that she retained counsel after she filed an appeal because her motions had not been addressed. On July 30, 2020, Brandy's counsel filed an affidavit and a motion for contempt based on her former husband's failure to pay 09/26/2023

Case Number: OP 23-0508various marital debts and other monies according to the court's Decree.1 She claims that

the District Court has abused its discretion by not issuing an order on the motion for contempt after holding ahearing, causing a gross injustice. Secondly, she claims that the court is working under a mistake of law because it did not hold a hearing on her March 2023 motion for civil contempt and enforcement under § 40-5-601, MCA. Lastly, Brandy asserts that the District Court's unwillingness to act in her case for the past three years establishes bias,thuswarrantingreassignrnent ofajudge. Citingto § 25-2-201, MCA, she contends that a change of venue is required because both parties have resided in Yellowstone County since 2018. She explains that in 2017, she moved the District Court to change venue, but that the court denied her motion. Brandy requests that this Court accept supervisory control over her case. Sheposits that a writ ofmandate is not appropriate because she feels that the presidingjudge lacks "the ability to be fair and impartial at this point[.]" She would like this Court to consider the 2020 motion for contempt and assign the matter to the Yellowstone County District Court. Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy. Awrit is sometimesjustifiedwhen the case involves purely legal questions and urgent or emergency factors make the normal appeal process inadequate,when the case involves purely legal questions, and when the courtisproceedingunder amistakeoflawand is causingagross injustice,orconstitutional issues ofstate-wide importance are involved. M. R. App. P. 14(3)(a)-(c). This Court has reviewed Brandy's attachments and secured a copy of a recent register of actions. This Court cannot assist Brandy with her requests. We point to our final decision in her appeal, issued in April 2021. There, we addressed the issues Brandy currently raises. Brandy raised the issue that the court "abused its discretionwhen it failed to consider her posttrial motions[1"Persoma, ¶7. This argument included the motion for

1 Brandy's counsel later moved to withdraw from representation. The court granted the motion onNovember 25, 2020. 2contempt that Brandy again raises now. We stated: "The District Court did not abuse its

discretion or otherwise err in how it handled the multitude of posttrial motions filed by [Brandy] and, while we recognize [Brandy] was denied visitation for a substantial period, the court was endeavoringtoprotectB.J.P.'sbest interestswhile moving forward to a final parentingplan." Persoma, ¶ 11. Turning to Brandy's second issue claiming that Tyler must pay for the three sons' medical care, this Court concludes no basis exists for the claim. We observe that the underlying case involved a parenting plan concerning only "the care of their daughter, B.J.P." Persoma, ¶ 2. The Decree did not include a parenting plan for the three sons. Tyler S. Persoma (Tyler), Brandy's former spouse, adopted Brandy's three teenage sons from a previous relationship; however, the sons were not part of the parenting plan. Persoma, ¶¶2-3. We explained: "The court dissolved the parties' marriage and ordered theparenting ofthethree sons was to remain in accordance with the January 2017 order."2 Persoma, ¶4. Brandy's attached emails from opposing counsel supportthis conclusion as well. Brandy also alleges theDistrict Court erred in denyingher motionto changevenue. However, this matter was similarly raised in her appeal. We noted that the venue was proper based on the child, B.J.P., being in Musselshell County and that Brandy did not object atthe beginning oftheproceedings. Persoma, ¶ 12. Finally,this Court doesnotassignmattersto othercourtsthrough apetition forwrit. M. R. App. P. 14(2). 'WeconcludethatBrandy isnot entitledto awritofsupervisory control. TheDistrict Court is not proceedingunder a mistake oflaw and causing agross injustice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Brandy Absher's Petition for a Writ ofSupervisory Control is DENIED and DISMISSED.

2The court's 2017 order referenced the 2016 interim plan that "concluded [Brandy] would serve as the primary residential parent ofthe three sons and [Tyler] would be the primary residential parent for B.J.P." Persoma, ¶3. 3

### The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to: the Honorable Randal I.

Spaulding, District Court Judge; Barb Halverson, Clerk of District Court, Musselshell County, under CauseNo. DR 16-02; counsel ofrecord, and Brandy J.Absherpersonally. DATED this day ofSeptember, 2023.

4 

### ChiefJustice



## Irl -41:4„,

Justices