12/06/2016
DA 16-0332
Case Number: DA 16-0332
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 321N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
JULIA M. JARDINE,
f/k/a JULIA M. SCHWARTZ,
Petitioner and Appellee,
and
WESLEY A. SCHWARTZ,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 11-0029
Honorable Gregory R. Todd, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Wesley A. Schwartz (Self-Represented), Los Angeles, California
For Appellee:
Kevin T. Sweeney, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: November 10, 2016
Decided: December 6, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, 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 Wesley Schwartz appeals from the District Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Order filed on May 23, 2016. We affirm.
¶3 Schwartz and Julia Jardine were married in 2005 and divorced in 2013. They have
three children who live with Jardine, and the divorce decree provides a parenting plan
and support requirements. We previously reversed Jardine’s attempt to terminate
Schwartz’s parental rights and have her father adopt the children. In the Matter of the
Adoption of AMS, MAS and AWS, 2016 MT 22, 382 Mont. 145, 364 P.3d 1261.
¶4 The present appeal arises from Schwartz’s motions to reduce his child support
obligation and to modify the parenting plan to allow him unsupervised contact with the
children. The District Court set these motions for hearing and denied Schwartz’s motion
that he be allowed to participate by telephone. Schwartz claimed that he could not afford
to travel to Montana from his home in California. The District Court denied that motion
and held the hearing on the Schwartz motions. Several witnesses testified but Schwartz
did not appear.
2
¶5 After the hearing the District Court considered the testimony along with materials
submitted by Schwartz, and in addition the testimony and exhibits considered in the
previous hearing. The District Court found that the evidence showed that there were no
grounds for changing the child support obligation or the conditions for visitation. The
District Court also found that Schwartz “continues to make sworn declarations to the
Court that are utterly untrue.” The District Court found that Schwartz was not a poor
student as he claimed, but “lives a comfortable lifestyle in affluent West Los Angeles,
California” where he lives with and is supported by his attorney. The District Court
found that the testimony of the therapist who works with the children supports continuing
the supervision requirements for Schwartz’s contact with the children.
¶6 Schwartz appeals from the order denying his motion to appear telephonically, and
from the denial of his motions to amend the prior orders regarding visitation and child
support. He contends that denial of each of these motions was an abuse of discretion.
¶7 Schwartz has not demonstrated that the District Court abused its discretion in
denying him leave to participate in the hearing by telephone or in denying his motions to
modify prior court orders. Moreover, the District Court’s findings of fact are based upon
substantial evidence in the record and its conclusions of law are correct.
¶8 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 District Court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence
and the legal issues are controlled by settled law.
¶9 Affirmed.
3
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We Concur:
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
4
Marriage of Jardine and Schwartz
Combined Opinion