No. 05-115
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2005 MT 326N
__________________________________________
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
SUE ANNE TANNER WORKMAN,
Petitioner and Appellant,
v.
CLAYTON DALE WORKMAN,
Respondent and Respondent.
__________________________________________
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula, Cause No. DR 2001-412
The Honorable John W. Larson, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Christopher Daly, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Respondent:
Clayton Workman (pro se), Missoula, Montana
__________________________________________
Submitted on Briefs: November 22, 2005
Decided: December 20, 2005
Filed:
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be
included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter
and Montana Reports.
¶2 Sue Workman (Sue) appeals from that portion of the amended findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and decree of dissolution issued by the Fourth Judicial District Court,
Missoula County, regarding the primary residential custody of the children with her
husband, Clayton Dale Workman (Clayton). Sue’s challenge focuses on the alleged
deficiencies in the recommendations and report prepared by the guardian ad litem and the
District Court in accepting the guardian ad litem’s recommendations.
¶3 The parenting plan adopted by the District Court provides that Clayton should
have primary residential custody of the children. The children should reside during the
school year with Clayton while attending Potomac School. Sue retains visitation every
other weekend, except January through March, during which she will have one weekend
per month due to the dangers of traveling on the highway during these winter months.
The parenting plan also grants Sue visitation the full three days of every other three-day
legal holiday and one-half of all summer with the two younger children and summer
visitation as requested by the oldest child.
¶4 We review decisions of a district court involving parenting issues under an abuse
of discretion standard. Czapranski v. Czapranski, 2003 MT 14, ¶ 10, 314 Mont. 55, ¶ 10,
2
63 P.3d 499, ¶ 10. When reviewing the court’s discretionary decision, we review its
findings of fact and determine whether they are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of
Fishbaugh, 2002 MT 175, ¶ 19, 310 Mont. 519, ¶ 19, 52 P.3d 395, ¶ 19.
¶5 The briefs and the record presented indicate that settled Montana law controls the
outcome and the District Court correctly applied this settled law. The District Court
appointed a guardian ad litem as authorized under § 40-4-205, MCA, to represent the
interests of the minor children in this proceeding. Nothing in the record indicates that the
District Court abused its discretion in relying upon the recommendations of the guardian
ad litem and in adopting these recommendations in its proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law. We affirm the District Court.
¶6 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section 1, Paragraph 3(d) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for
memorandum opinions.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
3