Court Opinion

ID: 9387782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 22:05:36.463695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.529830
License: Public Domain

ORIGINAL                                            04/18/2023

            IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                                                                           Case Number: OP 23-0176

                                         OP 23-0176
                                                                           RILED
REBECCAH SCOTT,
                                                                           ApR 1 8 2023
                                                                         BOW1,` n Gf rdenwoccl '
             Petitioner,                                               Clarkt of Suprema Court
                                                                           State of Montana

       v.
                                                                     ORDER
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
FLATHEAD COUNTY, HONORABLE AMY
EDDY, Presiding,

             Respondent.

       Petitioner Rebeccah Scott seeks a writ of supervisory control to reverse the
February 14, 2023 Order Granting Third-Party Petitioners Ex Parte Emergency Third Party
Parenting of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, in its Cause No.
DR-19-134A.     We ordered an abbreviated time for summary response in light of the
show-cause hearing that the District Court set for April 25. In accordance with that Order,
Janice Scott and David Scott, third-party petitioners in the underlying matter, have filed their
response urging the Court to denyt the requested writ. In addition, the Court has received the
District Court's April 10, 2023 order denying Rebeccah's motion to amend its February order
and reaffirming the April 25 hearing schedule.
       The case involves Rebeccah's 11-year-old child, who is the subject of a 2019 parenting
plan entered in the Eleventh Judicial District Court. David and Janice Scott are the child's
maternal grandfather and step-grandmother, respectively, and have cared extensively for the
child since he was an infant. The child was residing with them and enrolled in school until
Rebeccah picked him up on January 20, 2023, and took him to North Dakota.. On February 14,
the Scotts filed a petition for third-party parenting and simultaneously filed a motion for ex
parte emergency parenting. The Scotts' affidavits asserted that Rebeccah was engaging in
conduct harmful to the welfare of the child, neglecting the child, and emotionally abusing the
child. They expressed their belief that, without immediate court intervention while the action
was pending, the child could suffer irreparable harm. Based on a threshold finding of good
cause, the District Court ordered that the child be returned to the Scotts and remain in their
primary care during the pendency of the litigation. It ordered an Interim Third-Party Parenting
Plan and set a hearing for two weeks later. On Rebeccah's motion, the court continued the
hearing to April 25, 2023.
       Rebeccah seeks relief from the court's order on the ground that the District Court is
proceeding under a mistake of law by authorizing "the taking of a child from his mother by a
person not already lawfully declared to have a parent-child relationship and parental interest."
She maintains that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to consider any motion for a parenting
plan when there has been no determination that a parent-child relationship or parenting
interest exists.   The Scotts resp6nd that they have filed an underlying petition for the
establishment of parenting rightS- in accordance with law, and the proceeding is properly
before the District Court.
       In its April 10 order, the District Court observed that the Scotts did not file a petition
for grandparent-grandchild contact or visitation but a petition for third-party parental rights,
which is now pending. The court noted that, undefstanding the importance of the action, it
set a show-cause hearing within fourteen days of its emergency order, which was continued
at Rebeccah's request. The District Court intends to move forward with the April 25 hearing.
       Supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy that is sometimes justified when
urgency or emergency factors exist making the normal appeal process inadequate, when the
case involves purely legal questions, and when the other court is proceeding under a mistake
of law and is causing a gross injustice, constitutional issues of state-wide importance are
involved, or, in a criminal case, the other court has granted or denied a motion to substitute a
judge. M. R. App. P. 14(3). We determine on a case-by-case basis whether supervisory
control is appropriate. Stokes v. Mont. Thirteenth Judicial Dist. Court, 2011 MT 182, ¶ 5,
361 Mont. 279, 259 P.3d 754 (citations omitted).
       Under § 40-4-211(4)(b), MCA, a nonparent who has established a parent-child
relationship with a child may file a petition for parenting; § 40-4-228, MCA, allows a

                                               2
nonparent to establish a parental interest in a child if the nonparent shows by clear and
convincing evidence that:
              (a) the natural parent has engaged in conduct that is contrary to the
       child-parent relationship; and
              (b) the nonparent has established with the child a child-parent
       relationship, as defined in 40-4-211, and it is in the best interests of the child to
       continue that relationship.

Section 40-4-228(2), MCA. The Scotts filed their petition and motion under these sections.
At this stage in the proceeding, the District Court has determined that it has jurisdiction over
the child, § 40-4-211(2)(a), MCA, and that it entered an emergency interim third-party
parenting plan after finding the Scotts met their initial burden under § 40-4-220(2)(a)(ii),
MCA. We are not convinced that the District Court's order constitutes a mistake of law,
causing a gross injustice, or that the petition raises purely legal questions. M. R. App. P.
14(3)(a). Having reviewed the petition, the response, and the District Court's orders, we
conclude that Rebeccah has not demonstrated threshold requirements for this Court's
discretionary intervention in the underlying case.
       IT IS THERFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of supervisory control is
DENIED.
       The Clerk is directed to provide immediate notice of this Order to counsel for
Petitioner, to all parties and counsel of record in the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead
County, Cause No. DR-19-134A, and to the Honorable Amy Eddy, presiding.
       DATED this ) r —day of April, 2023.
    f7'    ../144

          Justices

4