Opinion ID: 4538428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶5 We review the underlying findings in support of a district court’s decision regarding modification of a parenting plan under the clearly erroneous standard. Northcutt v. McLaughlin (In re G.M.N.), 2019 MT 18, ¶ 10, 394 Mont. 112, 433 P.3d 715 (citing Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100, ¶ 20, 356 Mont. 218, 232 P.3d 888 (Guffin II)). We review a district court’s conclusions of law to determine if they are correct. In re G.M.N., ¶ 10 (citing Tubaugh v. Jackson (In re C.J.), 2016 MT 93, ¶ 12, 383 Mont. 197, 369 P.3d 1028). ¶6 “A district court has broad discretion when considering the parenting of a child, and we must presume the court carefully considered the evidence and made the correct decision.” In re G.M.N., ¶ 11 (citation omitted). It is not the function of this Court to reweigh conflicting evidence or substitute its judgment regarding the strength of the evidence for that of the district court. In re G.M.N., ¶ 11 (citing In re A.F., 2003 MT 254, ¶ 24, 317 Mont. 367, 77 P.3d 266). The ultimate test for adequacy of findings of fact is whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for decision, and whether they are supported by the evidence presented. In re G.M.N., ¶ 11 3 (citing In re Marriage of Wolfe, 202 Mont. 454, 458, 659 P.2d 259, 261 (1983)). Absent clearly erroneous findings, we will not disturb a district court’s decision regarding a parenting plan unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. In re G.M.N., ¶ 11 (citing In re C.J., ¶ 13).