Court Opinion

ID: 9839372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 21:09:07.882001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:22.439339
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL
                                                                                          09/12/2023

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                      Case Number: DA 23-0082
                                        DA 23-0082

 IN RE: THE PARENTING OF P.R.F.,

 Minor child of                                                                   SEP 1 2 2023
                                                                               Bowen Greenwood
                                                                             Clerk of Supreme Court
                                                                                State of Montana
 PRESTON ORRIE BALDRY,

              Petitioner and Appellant,                              QRDER

 and

 SHALYNN RAHEL FJELD,

               Respondent and Appellee.

       This matter was commenced by the father of P.R.F., Prestori Orrie Baldry (Father),
to establish a parenting plan with the mother, Shalynn Rahal Fjeld (Mother), for P.R.F. A
final parenting plan was adopted by the court in December of 2018 which granted Mother
primary custody until P.R.F. reached the age of three years, at which time joint residential
conditions would begin. During the interim, however, Father filed a motion to amend the
parenting plan alleging Mother had placed P.R.F. in danger when she married a man who
had abused her and had also caused injury to P.R.F.
       The District Court set a final hearing on Father's motion to amend the parenting
plan for July 8, 2022. However, on June 29, 2022, Father filed a motion to have Mother's
parental rights to P.R.F. terminated. On January 6, 2022, the District Court entered an
order denying Father's motion, concluding that because this was neither a stepparent
adoption under Title 42 or a Dependency and Neglect proceeding under Title 41, it had no
authority to terminate Mother's parental rights. The District Court set the matter for a case
management conference for January 24, 2023. However, the case managernent hearing
was continued because Mother's counsel had to attend a mediation. On February 2, 2023,
Father's appeal in this Court was noted. There has been no final determination rnade or
judgment entered in the parenting plan proceeding.
       The Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure provide what orders and judgments may
be appealed. Rule 6 provides that a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a
district court and from other specifically designated orders. M. R. App. P. 6. An order
denying a motion to terminate parental rights in a parenting plan proceeding which remains
open without a final parenting plan and judgment entered is not one of the enumerated
interlocutory orders from which an appeal may be taken. Additionally, the order from
which Father appeals was not certified as final by the District Court pursuant to M. R. App.
P. 7 (6) and M. R. Civ. P 54(b). Father may appeal the denial of his motion to terminate
Mother's parental rights upon entry of final judgment and adoption of a final parenting
plan by the District Court.
       Therefore,
       IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed without prejudice sua sponte by the
Court because the appeal is not from a final judgment.
      The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to close this case as of this Order's date.
      The Clerk is also directed to provide a copy of this Order to all parties of record.
       DATED this        —day of September, 2023.

                                                               Chief Justice

                                             2