Opinion ID: 885629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Butte Central or Anaconda Public Schools?

Text: ¶27 Our review of prior case law indicates that we have not previously considered parental disagreements that focus on which school a child should attend. However, our decisions indicate that a district court should use common sense in considering issues in the best interest of a child. In re Marriage of Syverson (1997), 281 Mont. 1, 17, 931 P.2d 691, 701. Further, Syverson also indicated in dicta that a district court should not consider arrangements where a child has to attend school in two different locations, in order to preserve a custody arrangement. Syverson, 281 Mont. at 17, 931 P.2d at 701. We have also upheld the recognition that stability is important to children, so much so that custody be changed in order to allow them to remain in their current community. In re Marriage of file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-478%20Opinion.htm (10 of 13)3/23/2007 4:07:59 PM file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/00-478%20Opinion.htm Bergner (1986), 222 Mont. 305, 310-11, 722 P.2d 1141, 1145. ¶28 Based on our review of the record and our prior case law, we hold that the District Court did not err in finding that Joseph should remain in school in Anaconda. The District Court accepted the terms of the mediated settlement which allowed Cheryl to remain the residential custodian. Therefore, allowing Joseph to remain with her and attend a school in the same community in which he lives can hardly be considered clearly erroneous, but instead provides stability for Joseph. ¶29 We note that in presenting the question on school attendance to the court, Robert was in essence asking the court to reverse the settlement agreement and make him the residential custodian. Presenting a court with questions which require it to ignore a mediation defeats the whole purpose of mediation to further the wishes discussed and agreed to by the parties. The school question presented to the court in this case attempted to get the court to accomplish an entirely different purpose, awarding custody, with a backdoor approach. We will not reverse a district court that resists such attempts to defeat mediation. ¶30 Further, the court indicated that it had no credible evidence showing that Butte Central was a significantly better school. Even accepting the evidence submitted by Robert on appeal that Butte Central's standardized test scores are above the national average, this evidence does not show Anaconda's schools are necessarily worse. Further, even if Butte Central were a better school, Anaconda's schools would have to be shown to be significantly substandard in order to demonstrate to the court that it was in Joseph's best interest not to stay in the home and town of his residential custodian, Cheryl. As the District Court stated, it had no credible evidence showing significant differences between the schools. Therefore, the District Court's finding on the issue of school attendance was not clearly erroneous.