DA 16-0332

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2016 MT 321N

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

JULIA M. JARDINE,

f/k/a JULIA M. SCHWARTZ,

 Petitioner and Appellee,

 and

WESLEY A. SCHWARTZ,

 Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 11-0029

Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Wesley A. Schwartz (Self-Represented), Los Angeles, California

For Appellee:

Kevin T. Sweeney, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: November 10, 2016

 Decided: December 6, 2016

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

12/06/2016

Case Number: DA 16-0332
2

Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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 Wesley Schwartz appeals from the District Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions 

of Law and Order filed on May 23, 2016. We affirm.

¶3 Schwartz and Julia Jardine were married in 2005 and divorced in 2013. They have 

three children who live with Jardine, and the divorce decree provides a parenting plan 

and support requirements. We previously reversed Jardine’s attempt to terminate 

Schwartz’s parental rights and have her father adopt the children. In the Matter of the 

Adoption of AMS, MAS and AWS, 2016 MT 22, 382 Mont. 145, 364 P.3d 1261. 

¶4 The present appeal arises from Schwartz’s motions to reduce his child support 

obligation and to modify the parenting plan to allow him unsupervised contact with the 

children. The District Court set these motions for hearing and denied Schwartz’s motion 

that he be allowed to participate by telephone. Schwartz claimed that he could not afford 

to travel to Montana from his home in California. The District Court denied that motion 

and held the hearing on the Schwartz motions. Several witnesses testified but Schwartz 

did not appear. 
3

¶5 After the hearing the District Court considered the testimony along with materials 

submitted by Schwartz, and in addition the testimony and exhibits considered in the 

previous hearing. The District Court found that the evidence showed that there were no 

grounds for changing the child support obligation or the conditions for visitation. The 

District Court also found that Schwartz “continues to make sworn declarations to the 

Court that are utterly untrue.” The District Court found that Schwartz was not a poor 

student as he claimed, but “lives a comfortable lifestyle in affluent West Los Angeles, 

California” where he lives with and is supported by his attorney. The District Court 

found that the testimony of the therapist who works with the children supports continuing 

the supervision requirements for Schwartz’s contact with the children.

¶6 Schwartz appeals from the order denying his motion to appear telephonically, and 

from the denial of his motions to amend the prior orders regarding visitation and child 

support. He contends that denial of each of these motions was an abuse of discretion. 

¶7 Schwartz has not demonstrated that the District Court abused its discretion in 

denying him leave to participate in the hearing by telephone or in denying his motions to 

modify prior court orders. Moreover, the District Court’s findings of fact are based upon 

substantial evidence in the record and its conclusions of law are correct. 

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

our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion 

of the Court, the District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence 

and the legal issues are controlled by settled law.

¶9 Affirmed.
4

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur: 

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

/S/ BETH BAKER

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA