Marriage of Churchill , 2012 MT 311N ( 2012 )

December 27 2012
DA 12-0177
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2012 MT 311N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
JEREMY CHURCHILL,
and Petitioner and Appellant,
r 1L
-
LJLL 7 O1?
TARA CHURCHILL,
cr-[
Respondent and Appellee.
CLERK OFTHL
A'
STATE C M(J
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Richland, Cause No. DR 2010-77
Honorable David Cybulski, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Marybeth M. Sampsel; Measure, Sampsel, Sullivan & O'Brien, P.C.,
Kalispell, Montana
For Appellee:
W. Corbin Howard; Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
Phillip N. Carter; Attorney at Law, Sidney, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 12, 2012
Decided: December 27, 2012
Filed:
ç,
i Ierk
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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 The parties were married in 2000 and have two children, born in 2001 and 2008.
Jeremy petitioned for dissolution of the marriage in December 2010. The District Court
conducted a bench trial on February 9, 2012. The District Court entered Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decree of Dissolution dated March 7, 2012 dissplving the
marriage and adopting a parenting plan. Jeremy appeals. We affirm.
¶3 On appeal Jeremy contends that the District Court erred by disallowing proffered
expert testimony, and by making findings of fact and conclusions of law not supported by
testimony or evidence. The day prior to the trial Jeremy proposed to call an expert who
he now says would have testified that the parties' son said that he wanted to live with
Jeremy. Jeremy had failed to attend the District Court's pre-trial scheduling conference
and relies upon the absence of a scheduling order in the case as justification for his failure
to disclose the expert. However, by the time of trial Jeremy had already failed t 0 disclose
the expert despite Tara's long-standing discovery requests under M. R. Civ. P 26(b)(4).
The District Court disallowed the proposed expert, but interviewed the son at trial about
2
his residential preferences.' A district court's decision on the admission of expert
testimony is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. DiMarzio v. Crazy Mtn. Cônst., 2010
MT 231, ¶ 19, 358 Mont. 119, 243 P.3d 718. This Court generally defers to the decision
of a district court regarding the consequences of a party's failure to comply with
discovery, Patterson v. State, 2002 MT 97, ¶ 8, 309 Mont. 381, 46 P.3d 642.
Disallowing the late-disclosed expert was within the sound discretion of the District
Court, the child expressed his wishes in any event, and there has been no showing of an
abuse of discretion.
¶4 The district court sits in the best position to evaluate the best interest of the
children, Hilliard v. Smith, 2011 MT 98, ¶ 18, 360 Mont. 288, 253 P.3d 863, and a
district court's decision adopting a parenting plan will be upheld if it is not clearly
erroneous; if it is supported by substantial evidence. In re Marriage of Tummarello, 2012
MT 18, ¶ 21, 363 Mont. 387, 270 P.3d 28. Tara testified in support of the parenting plan
as did other witnesses she called to testify at trial. While Jeremy testified that he wanted
the children to live with him, the District Court found that splitting the children, 's primary
residence as Jeremy suggested would not be in their best interest. There was substantial
evidence to support the plan adopted by the District Court and there is no basis upon
which to overturn the decision.
A district court may consider a child's wishes when adopting a parenting plan, but is not
bound by them. Hilliard v. Smith, 2011 MT 98, ¶ 20, 360 Mont. 288, 253 P.3d 863. This
is especially true in a case like the present one where the District Court determined that
Jeremy had coached the parties' son as to his testimony.
3
T5 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. The District
Court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the legal issues are
controlled by settled Montana law, which the District Court correctly interpreted.
¶6 Affirmed.
Chief Justice
We concur:
4