DA 16-0717

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2017 MT 174N

IN RE THE PARENTING OF:

R.W.W.,

 A Minor Child.

TRINA J. WOLF,

 Petitioner and Appellant.

 v.

WALTER E. WOLF,

 Respondent and Appellee.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DR-13-380C

Honorable Brenda Gilbert, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Michael J. Uda, Dylan A. Wright, Uda Law Firm, P.C., Helena, Montana

For Appellee:

Leanne M. Schraudner, Schraudner & Hillier, Bozeman, Montana

Troy Greenfield, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., Seattle, Washington

Submitted on Briefs: June 21, 2017

 Decided: July 11, 2017

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

07/11/2017

Case Number: DA 16-0717
2

Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating 

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not 

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this 

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana 

Reports. 

¶2 Trina J. Wolf (Trina) appeals the Final Parenting Plan ordered by the Eighteenth 

Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, on October 16, 2016. The District Court, the 

Honorable Brenda R. Gilbert presiding, ordered a Final Parenting Plan prepared in 

accordance with the court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order dated July 20, 

2016. We affirm.

¶3 Trina and Walter E. Wolf (Walter) are the biological parents of R.W.W., born in 

October of 2004. The parties’ marriage was dissolved in 2011 and a Final Decree was 

entered incorporating the terms of their agreed parenting plan. The parenting plan provided 

for parenting to be shared between the parties. The court appointed Kathleen Rock (GAL 

Rock) as guardian ad litem for R.W.W. upon Trina’s recommendation and familiarity with 

Rock as a guardian ad litem for her children from a prior marriage. 

¶4 In January of 2014, GAL Rock became concerned that Trina was engaging in 

behaviors detrimental to R.W.W.’s best interests, such as applying significant pressure on 

R.W.W. to lie about his dad to law enforcement personnel, Child and Family Services 

(CFS) personnel, and other third parties. More specifically, GAL Rock related in an 
3

affidavit that Trina took R.W.W. to the Bozeman Police Station and presented a story of 

Walter and others plotting during a Thanksgiving celebration to kill Trina, all in front of 

R.W.W. Trina presented the same story to CFS. Upon investigation, the story turned out 

to be false. Further, GAL Rock related that when she saw R.W.W. in January 2014, he 

was in extreme distress and presented in a fetal position, with his hood pulled over his eyes. 

When GAL Rock asked what was wrong, R.W.W. repeatedly said that he could not say 

and that his mom told him he would go to jail if he did. Eventually, R.W.W. recounted 

that Trina had made him lie about the incident.

¶5 GAL Rock requested emergency relief from the court and filed an affidavit detailing 

her concerns with Trina’s behavior. Trina then sought to have GAL Rock removed as 

R.W.W.’s guardian ad litem and was adamantly opposed to GAL Rock being involved in 

the proceeding. The District Court suspended GAL Rock’s role as guardian ad litem on 

February 13, 2014. Pursuant to § 40-4-215, MCA, the court appointed Dr. Christopher 

Hahn to investigate and make recommendations to the court regarding R.W.W.’s welfare.

¶6 Dr. Hahn met with R.W.W. on ten different occasions and conducted in-home 

observations in each parent’s home. The court characterized Dr. Hahn’s relationship with

R.W.W. as open and trusting. On September 22, 2014, Dr. Hahn issued a Parenting 

Investigation Report which the court implemented on November 6, 2014, as an interim 

parenting plan. The interim plan provided that R.W.W. would spend two weeks with 

Walter and one week with Trina on a rotating basis, with a recommendation that, once 
4

some deficiencies were met regarding Trina’s parenting, the schedule would move to 

alternating weeks between the parents.

¶7 On January 7, 8, and 9, 2015, the court conducted a trial on the request for 

emergency relief and modification of the parenting plan. Dr. Hahn had conducted two 

more interviews of R.W.W. in December 2014, in order to update the court regarding any 

changes since his September recommendation, as well as to testify concerning the entire 

period of his investigation. Dr. Hahn testified that Trina’s behavior had worsened in the 

past few months and that R.W.W.’s stress level, clarity, and tolerance for her behavior had 

significantly changed. R.W.W. made it clear to Dr. Hahn that he wanted the court to know 

his desire was to live with his father. Dr. Hahn related that R.W.W. said Trina makes him

feel guilty, annoyed, and sad. R.W.W. told Dr. Hahn that his mother wanted him to lie 

about his father to law enforcement and make false reports. R.W.W. said he did not want 

to be with his mother until she “gets better” by not yelling, not making him lie, and by

getting control of her emotions.

¶8 When Dr. Hahn made recommendations contrary to Trina’s wishes, Trina and her 

attorney issued subpoenas to Dr. Hahn’s licensing board prior to trial. Although the 

subpoenas were withdrawn, Trina reissued the subpoenas several days after conclusion of 

the trial. The District Court addressed the matter of the post-hearing subpoena issued by 

Trina’s counsel by separate order. Additionally, Trina and her attorney submitted a 

disciplinary complaint against Walter’s counsel which the District Court concluded was 

meritless.
5

¶9 Thereafter, following submission of proposed parenting plans by the parties, the 

court ordered on April 21, 2015, a second interim parenting plan, which continued the 

schedule of two weeks with Walter and one week with Trina. The court hoped that tensions 

between R.W.W. and Trina would subside and that the parenting schedule could move

towards alternating weeks with each parent. However, in an effort to deflect stress to 

R.W.W. from ongoing litigation, the court appointed a parenting coordinator, Dr. Michael 

Butz, to coordinate therapeutic efforts between the parties’ personal counselors and 

R.W.W.’s counselor. Pursuant to a mechanism chosen by the parties, R.W.W. selected Dr. 

Hallie Banziger as his counselor.

¶10 On December 15, 2015, and June 2-3, 2016, a trial was held regarding entry of a 

Final Parenting Plan. Dr. Banziger, who did not want to betray R.W.W.’s confidences, 

testified reluctantly and explained that when R.W.W. has been at Trina’s home and then 

comes in for therapy, he is always agitated and has a sense of urgency and pressure to relate 

bad things about his father. R.W.W. also insists that Dr. Butz be told these bad things 

about his father. Dr. Banziger testified that R.W.W. has suicidal ideations, meaning that 

he talks vaguely about removing himself from both of his parents because he believes if he 

were no longer alive, then his parents would have nothing to fight about. Dr. Banziger

testified that R.W.W. was concerned that his mother might not be able to live if he was 

taken away from her and that he thinks that she does not get out of bed when he is gone. 

Dr. Banziger explained that R.W.W. has no sense of self and is very concerned about both 

of his parents, but really worried about his mother’s mental health. In contrast, Dr. 
6

Banziger testified that R.W.W. feels safe and relaxed with Walter and that R.W.W. has a 

good relationship with his father. Also, Walter immediately responds to any concerns Dr. 

Banziger might raise, whereas Trina does not. Dr. Banziger opined that supervised 

parenting time with Trina was necessary based on R.W.W.’s suicidal ideations and extreme 

level of stress while in her care.

¶11 Dr. Butz, who provided reports to the court every two weeks since his appointment, 

testified as well to his concerns about R.W.W.’s well-being when in Trina’s care. Dr. Butz 

observed that when R.W.W. was with Trina he was tired, his posture was defensive, and at 

times, R.W.W. would assume a fetal position. He believed R.W.W. was deteriorating 

while residing with Trina and was in worse shape than previously. In comparison, when 

R.W.W. was with his father, he appeared rested, laughing, and demonstrated a good sense 

of humor. 

¶12 Trina requested that R.W.W. undergo a psychological evaluation, which the court 

granted. The court appointed Dr. Dee Woolston, who interviewed R.W.W. when he was 

living with Walter. R.W.W. stated that he wants to run away when he is at Trina’s house 

and that he feels very close to his father. Dr. Woolston explained that children who 

fantasize about running away from home often also fantasize about suicide. Although 

stating that “this child has been exposed to extraordinary parental manipulation,” 

Dr. Woolston was unable to “determine with confidence whether one parent has been more 

manipulative than the other . . . [and] that it might compound the potential for abuse by 
7

asking [R.W.W.] to reveal what kinds of pressures have been directed at him, and by 

whom.”

¶13 Trina presented her own expert witness, Dr. Robert Geffner, who was disclosed as 

an expert four days prior to trial. Over objection from Walter, the court allowed 

Dr. Geffner to testify. The court concluded, however, that Dr. Geffner’s testimony was an 

effort to discredit the work of the professionals who had been involved in the case. For 

this reason, and because Dr. Geffner’s opinions were based only on a review of the records, 

the court attributed little credibility to Dr. Geffner’s testimony.

¶14 The court again considered the testimony of Dr. Hahn, whom the court found had 

an honest and trusting relationship with R.W.W. and first-hand knowledge of R.W.W.’s 

wishes. The court noted that Dr. Hahn’s report was thorough and comprehensive, and that 

he had an excellent baseline concerning R.W.W., as he spent an “unprecedented” amount 

of time with R.W.W. during the original parenting investigation. Dr. Hahn changed his 

recommendation, suggesting instead a schedule whereby R.W.W. would live exclusively 

with Walter, with Trina having only supervised parenting time, following a stabilization 

period for R.W.W. wherein he would have no contact at all with Trina. Dr. Hahn’s 

concerns mirrored those of Drs. Butz and Banziger: that R.W.W.’s situation had worsened 

when he was with Trina, and a similar concern that R.W.W. had expressed suicidal ideation 

while in Trina’s care. Also, R.W.W. had expressed to Dr. Hahn his desire to live only with 

his father; this was true even after R.W.W. experienced the two week/one week rotation 

for several months.
8

¶15 Based on this evidence, as well as other evidence presented, the court issued a 

forty-three page Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order on July 20, 2016, setting 

forth in comprehensive detail its reasons for ordering the Final Parenting Plan. The court 

incorporated all of its findings from its thirty-page order entered April 21, 2015. Observing

that “during the course of this matter, Trina and her attorney have employed toxic litigation 

tactics . . . ,” the court carefully and deliberately explained its consideration of the evidence,

in the context of each of the factors under § 40-4-212, MCA, and the guiding premise that

“R.W.W. was at a crucial point in his mental health.” The court noted R.W.W. was 

“approaching his teen years,” was “fragile” emotionally, and that “his circumstances need 

to change dramatically in order to keep his emotional condition from deteriorating further.” 

R.W.W.’s emotional health, the court emphasized, was “at the heart of the Court’s decision 

regarding a final parenting plan.” The court evaluated the testimony of each witness, 

setting forth its rationale regarding the witnesses’ credibility and the degree of reliance the 

court placed on the particular testimony. The court concluded that R.W.W., at this time, 

was put at risk in terms of his emotional well-being when living in Trina’s home and was, 

therefore, not emotionally safe when with Trina. As the court stated, “R.W.W. needs to be 

freed from the stress attendant to the disputes of his parents and this litigation. This 

environment is available to R.W.W. in Walter’s home. R.W.W. is emotionally safe while 

in the care of Walter.” After a period of time exclusively with Walter, the court stated that

Trina’s parenting time could resume in a supervised four-hour parenting block, to be 

exercised every other week. 
9

¶16 The court established a “Professional Team” comprised of Dr. Banziger (R.W.W.’s 

counselor), Dr. Eugenia Funk (Walter’s counselor), Dr. William Ryan (Trina’s counselor), 

and a Parenting Coordinator (retired District Court Judge, the Honorable Nels Swandal, 

was subsequently appointed). The court tasked the Professional Team with monitoring 

R.W.W.’s circumstances as well as Trina’s conduct and, when appropriate, with

recommending more frequent contact between R.W.W. and Trina when it would be

consistent with R.W.W.’s best interests. Walter’s counsel was directed to draft a proposed 

Final Parenting Plan for the court’s consideration.

¶17 On September 14, 2016, prior to an order adopting a Final Parenting Plan, Parenting 

Coordinator Nels Swandal filed a report with the court indicating that the reestablishment 

of contact between R.W.W. and Trina was still premature and that a period of no contact 

with Trina was still necessary, even without supervised visitation. The Professional Team 

recommended only written communication, which would go through the visitation 

supervisor, Brandyn Roark Caires, with phone calls to commence thereafter as deemed 

appropriate by the Professional Team.

¶18 On October 17, 2016, the court entered an order implementing the recommendations 

of the Professional Team. On October 20, 2016, the court entered an order adopting a Final 

Parenting Plan, which accorded with its July 20, 2016, findings of fact and conclusions of 

law.

¶19 Trina asserts the Final Parenting Plan is not based upon substantial evidence, that 

the court’s characterization of Trina’s legal actions as “toxic litigation tactics” violated her 
10

First Amendment rights, and that implementation of a Professional Team is an 

unconstitutional delegation of judicial power. 

¶20 We review findings of fact related to amendments of parenting plans to determine 

whether they are clearly erroneous. In re C.J., 2016 MT 93, ¶ 12, 383 Mont. 197, 369 P.3d 

1028; In re Brockington, 2017 MT 92, ¶ 18, 387 Mont. 260, ___ P.3d ___. When the

findings upon which a decision is predicated are not clearly erroneous, we will reverse a 

district court’s decision regarding a parenting plan amendment only when the district court 

demonstrated a clear abuse of discretion. In re C.J., ¶ 13; Brockington, ¶ 18. A trial court 

abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily without employment of conscientious 

judgment or exceed[s] the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” Albrecht v. 

Albrecht, 2002 MT 227, ¶ 7, 311 Mont. 412, 56 P.3d 339; In re C.J., ¶ 13.

¶21 Upon consideration of the entire record, the court’s conclusion that a dramatic 

change in the parenting of R.W.W. was necessary to protect R.W.W.’s best interests, 

indeed his life, was clearly supported by substantial evidence. Judge Gilbert’s assembly

of treating professionals to assess the reasons for R.W.W.’s underlying distress and assist 

in charting a course which would allow both parents to remain in R.W.W.’s life, 

demonstrates the employment of both good judgment and reason. The court ordered

several interim parenting arrangements over a span of two years in an attempt to monitor 

and assess the situation, while simultaneously protecting R.W.W.’s well-being. The 

District Court arrived at its findings and conclusions through careful and incremental 

assessments of the evidence. We have little difficulty in concluding that there is substantial 
11

evidence to support the District Court’s findings and conclusions; that the District Court’s 

findings are not clearly erroneous; and that the District Court did not abuse its discretion 

by ordering the Final Parenting Plan or implementation of a Professional Team.

¶22 With respect to Appellant’s contention that her First Amendment rights were 

violated because the District Court characterized the litigation and her litigation tactics as 

toxic, we consider that the District Court’s characterization was predicated on findings that 

the parties could not work together and co-parent. The parties’ toxic relationship

manifested in toxic litigation and tactics, creating a need for third persons to intervene and

deflect the stress of the toxic litigation and the overall contentiousness of the parties’

relationship away from R.W.W. The evidence of R.W.W.’s suicidal ideations clearly 

substantiates that the high degree of toxicity between Trina and Walter was adversely 

affecting R.W.W. Similarly, many of the expert witnesses regarded the parties’ 

relationship as toxic. We see nothing in the record that demonstrates Trina was denied her 

First Amendment rights, based upon the court’s accurate characterization that the litigation

tactics were toxic and inappropriate. Finally, there is substantial support in the record for

the Final Parenting Plan and the creation of the Professional Team apart from the court’s 

characterization. See Czapranski v. Czapranski, 2003 MT 14, 314 Mont. 55, 63 P.3d 499 

(rejecting parent’s assertion of a fundamental liberty interest where best interest factors 

contained in § 40-4-212, MCA, were properly applied); In re Marriage of Robinson, 2002 

MT 207, 311 Mont. 246, 53 P.3d 1279 (concluding that the best interests of the child 

outweigh parent’s fundamental right to travel). Trina has not set forth a plausible claim 
12

that she was denied her First Amendment protections based on the District Court’s 

assessment that the litigation was inappropriate and “toxic.”

¶23 Finally, Trina contends that the creation of the Professional Team was an 

unconstitutional delegation of judicial power in that any infringement on a parent’s rights

must be made by a court. Here, the District Court did not foreclose to either Trina or Walter

the opportunity to pursue court review of recommendations made by the Professional

Team. Indeed, when the Professional Team initially recommended that there should be no 

contact with Trina because of the potential for a severe and detrimental effect on R.W.W.’s 

emotional well-being, Trina filed an objection—which the court considered. The court’s 

decision to continue receiving input from mental health professionals is not unique to cases 

involving the welfare of children. Here, the creation of the Professional Team reflects the 

complexity of R.W.W.’s distress, the adversity of these proceedings, and the court’s effort 

to avoid completely severing Trina’s relationship with R.W.W. The door was left open for 

Trina to rebuild her relationship with R.W.W. in a manner that benefited R.W.W. The 

purpose for creating the Professional Team was to minimize the impact of further litigation 

upon R.W.W., while having the therapeutic providers of each party and R.W.W. work

together. Recommendations of the Professional Team become effective only upon order 

of the District Court. Either party may request a review hearing or object to the 

recommendations. The District Court continues to maintain authority over these 

proceedings and the decisions related to R.W.W.’s parenting plan. Accordingly, we reject 
13

Trina’s claim that there has been an unconstitutional delegation of authority to the 

Professional Team.

¶24 The District Court’s Final Parenting Plan and implementation of a Professional 

Team is affirmed. 

¶25 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our 

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for unpublished opinions. This appeal presents 

no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent 

or modify existing precedent.

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

We concur: 

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ BETH BAKER

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR