May 28 2010
DA 09-0681
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 122N
IN RE THE PARENTING OF
D.L.M., Minor Child.
________________________________
MICHELLE MARIE EDER-McLANE,
Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
ROGER EUGENE HUGHES,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 09-0179
Honorable Susan P. Watters, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Roger Eugene Hughes, (self-represented litigant) Deer Lodge, Montana
For Appellee:
(No brief filed.)
Submitted on Briefs: May 5, 2010
Decided: May 28, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme
Court and 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 Roger Eugene Hughes appeals the judgment of the Thirteenth Judicial District
Court, Yellowstone County, that Michelle Marie Eder-McLane is the primary residential
parent of their son, D.L.M.; that Hughes shall have no parenting time with D.L.M. and
Eder-McLane is not required to take D.L.M. to prison for visits with Hughes; and that
Hughes may communicate with D.L.M. only in writing, which writings Eder-McLane
may screen. We affirm.
¶3 It is manifest on the face of Hughes’ brief and the record that none of the issues
Hughes has set forth on appeal has merit, because those issues are controlled by settled
Montana law and/or the District Court clearly did not abuse its discretion.
¶4 Initially, we note that a parenting plan action is not a type of proceeding in which
Hughes is entitled to the appointment of counsel at public expense. See § 47-1-104(4),
MCA. Next, based on our review of the District Court file, we are unconvinced that the
District Court abused its discretion in denying Hughes’ request for appointment of a
guardian ad litem for D.L.M. Third, while Hughes made various claims in his answer to
2
Eder-McLane’s petition for a parenting plan, he did not raise any counterclaims
cognizable in a parenting plan action and to which Eder-McLane was required to file a
reply; therefore, the District Court did not err in denying Hughes’ motion for default
judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 55 as without merit.
¶5 Hughes has not provided a transcript of the District Court hearing -- the
appellant’s responsibility under M. R. App. P. 8(3). For that reason, we are unable to
consider his claims that the District Court lacked impartiality or disregarded any rules of
civil procedure or M. R. Evid. 609 regarding the admission of evidence at the hearing.
¶6 Finally, Hughes’ claims that opposing counsel breached a covenant of good faith
and fair dealing during the course of this action, or committed malpractice and breach of
ethics, are not matters that can be addressed within the scope of an appeal from the order
of the District Court providing for a parenting plan.
¶7 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for
memorandum opinions. The opinion of the District Court is affirmed.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We concur:
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
/S/ PATRICIA O. COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
3