96-695

 No. 96-695

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

 1997

In the Matter of THE APPOINTMENT OF

A GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND 

CONSERVATOR FOR LAUREN 

WATSON, JAMES WATSON, 

HOLLAND WATSON, and DURBIN 

WATSON,

 Protected Persons. 

 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Cascade,

 The Honorable John R. Christensen, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 Micheal F. Lamb, John A. Kutzen, Thueson & Lamb, Helena, Montana

 For Respondent:

 John C. Hoyt, Hoyt & Blewett, Great Falls, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: April 3, 1997

 Decided: June 3, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-695%20Opinion.htm (1 of 6)4/12/2007 12:22:44 PM
96-695

Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of the Court.

 Appellant James Watson (Watson) appeals the decision of the Eighth Judicial

District Court, Cascade County, denying his petition for appointment of himself as

conservator and guardian ad litem, and granting the petition of his ex-wife Tanara 

Martin

(Martin) for appointment of herself as conservator and guardian ad litem of the 

couplesþ

four minor children (the children). We affirm.

 ISSUE

 The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the District Court abused its

discretion in concluding that Martin was not subject to an inherent conflict of 

interest

between her husband and her children, that would preclude her from serving as the

childrenþs conservator and guardian ad litem.

 FACTS

 Watson and Martin were divorced in November 1993 and agreed to joint custody

of their four children. In September 1994, Martin married her present husband, Tony

Martin, who is employed by the Willow Creek Ranch (the ranch) in Belt, Montana, as

a ranch manager. Following her marriage, Martin moved with her four children to the

ranch. The ranch, as Tony Martinþs employer, provided housing, utilities, and onehalf

beef a year to the Martin family.

 On December 8, 1995, Martin requested that a ranch hand named Brent Wood

(Wood) pick up the children from school in Belt and give them a ride back to the 

ranch. 

During the trip back, the pickup truck driven by Wood was involved in a one-vehicle

accident which resulted in injuries to all the children. The parties agree that 

Wood was

acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time the accident 

occurred,

and further agree that the pickup truck in question was owned and insured by the 

ranch. 

The parties also agree that the ranch has approximately $800,000 of available 

insurance

coverage.

 The oldest Watson child, Lauren, was most grievously injured in the accident. 

Her injuries required her to remain in the hospital for over seven weeks and undergo 

at

least nine operations. The medical expenses incurred by her alone have totaled

approximately $200,000 thus far, and she may require additional treatment in the 

future

because the accident left her permanently handicapped. Given the nature of Laurenþs

injuries alone, the parties agree that the expenses and damages incurred by the four

children could exceed the limits of the insurance. While no lawsuit has thus far 

been

filed, the parties do not rule out the possibility that one may be filed in the 

future. Any

such law suit would likely seek to recover damages from the ranch, which directly

employs Martinþs husband and provides to him the home in which the family lives.

 In March 1996, Watson petitioned the District Court for his own appointment 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-695%20Opinion.htm (2 of 6)4/12/2007 12:22:44 PM
96-695

as

guardian ad litem and conservator for the children. Martin opposed his petition and

cross-petitioned for her own appointment. After a hearing, the District Court 

concluded

that Martinþs status as the wife of the ranchþs manager did not create an untenable 

conflict

of interest which would prohibit her from satisfactorily carrying out her fiduciary 

duty

to the children as their guardian ad litem and conservator. The District Court 

further

found her to be a better candidate for guardianship and conservatorship based upon 

her

long history of involved and loving parenting. It therefore granted her petition and

simultaneously denied Watsonþs petition. Watson appeals, asserting that Martinþs

situation constitutes an inherent conflict of interest which serves, as a matter of 

law, to

preclude her appointment as conservator and guardian ad litem. 

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

 This Court will not set aside a district courtþs findings of fact unless the 

findings

are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P.; Wareing v. Schreckendgust (1996), 

930

P.2d 37, 41, 53 St.Rep. 1362, 1364; Interstate Production Credit Assþn v. DeSaye

(1991), 250 Mont. 320, 323, 820 P.2d 1285, 1287. This Court will not set aside a

district courtþs conclusions of law unless the conclusions reflect an incorrect 

interpretation

of the applicable law. Boreen v. Christensen (1996), 930 P.2d 67, 53 St.Rep. 1450;

Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co., Inc. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 898 P.2d 680. 

Moreover, we have held that 

 [s]ubject to statutory restrictions, the selection of the person to be 

appointed

 guardian is a matter which is committed largely to the discretion of the

 appointing court, and an appellate court will interfere with the exercise of

 this discretion only in case of a clear abuse.

In the Matter of the Guardianship of Nelson (1983), 204 Mont. 90, 94, 663 P.2d 316,

318 (citation omitted). In reviewing the District Courtþs determination, we will 

give

paramount consideration to the best interests of the children. Section 72-5-223, 

MCA.

 DISCUSSION

 Did the District Court abuse its discretion in concluding that Martin was not

subject to an inherent conflict of interest that would preclude her from serving as 

the

childrenþs conservator and guardian ad litem?

 The parties agree that the potential interests of the children should be 

overseen by

a conservator and a guardian ad litem. Section 72-5-410, MCA, lists who may be

considered as a conservator to a protected person. Under 72-5-410(1)(e), MCA, both

parents are equally eligible to petition for conservatorship; neither is, by 

statute, favored

over the other. Section 72-1-303, MCA, provides, however, that "orders binding a

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-695%20Opinion.htm (3 of 6)4/12/2007 12:22:44 PM
96-695

conservator bind the person whose estate he controls," but only "[t]o the extent 

there is

no conflict of interest between them or among persons represented[.]" Section 72-1-

303(2)(b), MCA. Finally, 41-5-512, MCA, which provides for the appointment of a

guardian ad litem, states in part: The

 court

 at any

 stage

 of a

 procee

 ding

 on a

 petitio

 n

 under

 this

 chapte

 r may

 appoin

 t a

 guardi

 an ad

 litem

 for a

 youth

 if the

 youth

 has no

 parent

 or

 guardi

 an

 appear

 ing on

 his

 behalf

 or if

 their

 interes

 ts

 conflic

 t with

 those

 of the

 youth.

 

 Upon review, we conclude that the District Court did not err in determining 

that

Martin does not suffer from a conflict of interest that would preclude her from 

serving

as guardian ad litem and conservator to the children. The District Court found that

Martin "would fulfill her fiduciary duties to her children tenaciously, considering 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-695%20Opinion.htm (4 of 6)4/12/2007 12:22:44 PM
96-695

both

their emotional needs as well as their future financial security." This finding was

supported by Martinþs testimony that she would not hesitate to act in her childrenþs 

best

interests, even to the detriment of her husband. Martin further testified that she

recognized that a suit against the ranch likely would be necessary to safeguard the

childrenþs interests. 

 The evidence presented showed that Martin is an extremely involved and

protective mother who dedicates great time, love and attention to her children. The

evidence also showed that Watson is much less involved in his childrenþs lives. By 

his

own admission, the challenges of his career and new marriage have not allowed him to

see the children as often as he would like. For these reasons, Watson does not 

exercise

his visitation rights consistently. Martin testified that, at the time of trial, 

Watson had

not had their daughters to his home for an overnight visit in more than a year. 

 Watson contends that the above evidence is largely irrelevant to the 

determination

of who should be the conservator and guardian ad litem to the children. We cannot

agree. An argument that the Court should look solely at Martinþs alleged conflict of

interest ignores the District Courtþs responsibility to make a determination which 

serves

the best interests of the children.

 Watson cites several cases for the proposition that any potential conflict of 

interest

should serve to bar an individual from serving as a guardian ad litem or 

conservator. See

In the Matter of the Estate of Peterson, (1994), 265 Mont. 104, 874 P.2d 1230; In re

Marriage of Tesch (1982), 199 Mont. 240, 648 P.2d 293; In the Matter of the Estate of

Peter C. (Me.1985), 488 A.2d 468. We do not find these cases persuasive. None

parallel or approximate the admittedly very unique facts presented in the case at 

bar, and

none present situations where, as here, the court must give paramount consideration 

to

the best interests of the children involved. The District Court decided that the 

childrenþs

best interests would be served by the appointment of their mother as their guardian 

ad

litem and conservator. Upon review, we determine that the District Court did not 

err.

 Affirmed.

 /S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

We Concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-695%20Opinion.htm (5 of 6)4/12/2007 12:22:44 PM
96-695

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-695%20Opinion.htm (6 of 6)4/12/2007 12:22:44 PM