Opinion ID: 2653672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶18 The District Court in this case, having observed the legal interactions between Hansen and Brandi since their first order of protection in 2005, was very familiar with the parties and the issues in this matter. Its decision is supported by substantial, credible evidence and we defer to its findings. Because Moats did not seek an award of visitation rights in the alternative to a parental interest, we do not consider the applicability of § 40-4-228(3), MCA, to this action. See A.P.P., ¶ 21. The record does, however, support the District Court’s observation of the strong bond between Moats and the children. We concur with its recommendation that Hansen work with Moats to maintain that relationship. 8 ¶19 The District Court’s July 22, 2013 order granting exclusive parental control and authority over S.J.H. and J.B.H. to Hansen is affirmed. /S/ BETH BAKER We concur: /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT /S/ JIM RICE 9