Helena, Montana - Divorce lawyer represented defendant with appealing the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Dissolution.

Shauna and Justin Keegan (Justin) were married in 2014 and have two children

together. Justin filed to dissolve the marriage on September 4, 2019. Justin filed, and the

District Court adopted, an Interim Parenting Plan on September 6. The Interim Parenting

Plan provided that the children would continue to primarily reside with Justin. Every

Friday, Shauna would pick the children up in Deer Lodge and care for them through



1 Preliminarily, we must address some procedural irregularities in this case. Shauna filed a Notice

of Appeal on January 10, 2022, appealing the District Court's November 17, 2021, Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decree of Dissolution (Decree). While Shauna timely appeals the

District Court's Decree, her appeal focuses entirely on the District Court's March 31, 2021,

Parenting Order (Order), which denied her December 8, 2020, Motion to Amend the Parenting

Plan. In her appeal, Shauna also refers to her "[M. R. Civ. P.] 52/59 Motion for Opening the

Judgment, Receipt of Additional Testimony, and Amendment of Judgment” (Rule 52/59 Motion)

filed on April 7, 2021, and deemed denied on June 7, 2021. As the timeliness of this appeal has

not been raised, we will address the substance of Shauna's contentions regarding the District

Court's parenting decisions, which are primarily set forth in the March 31, 2021 Parenting Order.

3

Monday. The parties filed a stipulated parenting plan on March 3, 2020, which the District

Court adopted.

¶4 On December 10, 2020, Shauna filed a "Notice of Intent to Move” along with a

motion to amend the stipulated parenting plan to allow the children to relocate with her to

Pennsylvania. Justin objected and filed his own motion to amend the parenting plan to

allow the children to primarily reside with him in Montana. While the motions were

pending, Shauna moved to Pennsylvania in January 2021.

¶5 Following an evidentiary hearing on the motions, Shauna moved to submit evidence

under seal regarding Justin's medical records and toxicology reports. The records related

to an ATV accident in July 2020 involving Justin and one of the children. Shauna argued

the evidence indicated Justin had an alcohol abuse problem that required consideration

under § 40-4-212(1)(g), MCA. The District Court granted Shauna's motion. On March 31,

2021, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Order).

The Order denied Shauna's motion and adopted Justin's proposed amended parenting plan.

¶6 Shauna filed her Rule 52/59 Motion on April 7, asking the District Court to find that

Justin committed perjury and that Justin's ATV accident endangered the welfare of their

child. Shauna contended that Justin was intoxicated at the time of the accident and

subsequently lied about his alcohol consumption during the court's hearing. The Rule

52/59 Motion was deemed denied on June 7. Notwithstanding, the District Court issued

an order denying the motion on June 25. The District Court noted the evidence of Justin's

intoxication was previously considered and given weight in its Order.

4

¶7 The District Court issued its Decree formally dissolving the parties' marriage and

adopting their property settlement agreement on November 17, 2021. The Decree noted

that a parenting order had been issued previously. Shauna appeals.

¶8 First, Shauna contends the District Court clearly erred by not finding that Justin

perjured himself regarding his alcohol consumption on July 3, 2020.2

We review a district

court's findings of fact supporting a parenting plan to determine whether they are clearly

erroneous. In re M.C., 2015 MT 57, ¶ 10, 378 Mont. 305, 343 P.3d 569. A finding of fact

is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, the district court

misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or our review of the record convinces us the

district court made a mistake. In re Marriage of Woerner, 2014 MT 134, ¶ 11, 375 Mont.

153, 325 P.3d 1244. A district court's conclusions of law are reviewed for correctness. In

re M.C., ¶ 10. Trial courts have broad discretion when considering the parenting of a child

and this Court will not disturb the court's decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.

Woerner, ¶ 12. "A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, without employment

of conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial

injustice.” In re M.C., ¶ 10.

¶9 The District Court's Findings of Fact are not clearly erroneous. The District Court's

Order relied on the evidence submitted by Shauna to find that Justin's blood alcohol



2 Shauna does not directly argue the District Court's Findings of Fact were clearly erroneous.

Rather, Shauna contends the District Court abused its discretion by ignoring "clear and convincing

evidence of perjury” in its Findings of Fact. However, because Shauna's argument takes issue

with the District Court's Findings of Fact, we nonetheless review those findings for clear error.

5

concentration on July 3, 2020, "was .06 which is below the legal limit for presuming

impairment or intoxication but does demonstrate that he had consumed some alcohol.” The

District Court's Findings of Fact further noted testimony by Shauna and her witnesses

concerning Justin's alcohol abuse, as well as conflicting testimony from Justin and his

witnesses that he did not drink on July 3, 2020. Justin presented evidence of the law

enforcement report concerning the ATV accident, which did not result in any criminal

citations. The District Court considered this evidence in its assessment of the factors

enumerated in § 40-4-212, MCA. Concerning the mental and physical health of Shauna

and Justin, the District Court concluded that Justin was not criminally charged and that,

while the toxicology report contradicted Justin's testimony that he had not consumed

alcohol on July 3, 2020, the report also indicated that Justin was not intoxicated within the

legal definition, thus discrediting Shauna's testimony as well. The District Court

ultimately concluded both parties were "less than credible” and, faced with conflicting

testimony and credibility concerns, noted the discrepancies, and concluded that the factor

at issue did not weigh in favor of either party. Our review of the record convinces us the

District Court's decision was supported by substantial evidence and the District Court did

not misapprehend the effect of the evidence or clearly err. To the extent Shauna argues the

District Court abused its discretion by placing their children in Justin's primary care in

light of this evidence, we conclude the District Court did not act arbitrarily, without

employment of conscientious judgment, or exceed the bounds of reason.

6

¶10 Second, Shauna contends the District Court abused its discretion by adopting

Justin's proposed parenting plan and awarding him primary custody. However, Shauna

does not argue the District Court erred in applying the factors in § 40-4-212, MCA. Rather,

Shauna primarily attacks Justin's credibility. Shauna argues that the District Court abused

its discretion by criticizing her and by not finding that Justin's ATV accident and

subsequent testimony regarding his alcohol use on July 3, 2020, constituted criminal

behavior that Shauna contends should have weighed heavily against Justin.

¶11 Trial courts possess 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 Marriage of Crowley, 2014 MT 42, ¶ 44, 374 Mont. 48, 318 P.3d 1031.

Absent clearly erroneous findings, we will not disturb the district court's decision regarding

parenting unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Woerner, ¶ 12.

¶12 The District Court did not clearly abuse its discretion. The District Court made

specific fact-based conclusions based on evidence presented and analyzed the required

statutory factors to determine whether an amendment to the parenting plan was necessary.

The District Court concluded that both parties, at times, lacked credibility and noted the

impact of the parties' credibility on its conclusions. Judgments regarding the credibility of

witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony remain within the province of the

district court and we decline to substitute our judgment for its determinations. In re

Marriage of Tummarello, 2012 MT 18, ¶ 34, 363 Mont. 387, 270 P.3d 28. The District

7

Court assessed the credibility of both parties and exercised its judgment over disputed

factual matters. We decline to substitute our judgment for the District Court's.

¶13 The District Court's Findings of Fact are not clearly erroneous, and the District

Court did not abuse its discretion in adopting Justin's amended parenting plan. The District

Court's Decree is affirmed.

We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review.