Marriage of Cook Smith ( 2002 )

NO. 99-565
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2002 MT 40N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
CHERYLE A. COOK, a/k/a
SMITH, GLADDEN,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
CURTIS A. SMITH,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone,
The Honorable Susan P. Watters, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Cheryle A. Cook-Carlson, Pro Se, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Christopher P. Thimsen, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 3 1,2002
Decided: March 5,2002
Filed:
1 Chicf Justicc Karla M. Gray delivcrcd thc Opinion of the Court.
111 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Slipreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent. It shall be filed as
a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and shall be reported by case title,
Supreme Court cause number and result to the State Reporter Publishing Company and to
West Group in the quarterly table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.
72 Cheryle A. Cook-Carlson (Cheryle), appearing pro se, appeals from the entry by the
Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Order amending the Final Parenting PIan concerning Christopher, C.J. and Cory
Smith, the minor children of herself and Curtis Smith (Curtis). We affirm.
73 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in issuing
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order amending the Final Parenting Plan.
74 For reasons which will be stated below, we do not resolve the issue presented on its
merits.
BACKGROUND
75 Pursuant to a Decree of Dissolution, Cheryle and Curtis' marriage was dissolved on
October 3, 1994. Cheryle and Curtis are the parents of three minor children: Christopher,
C.J. and Cory Smith. At the time of the parties' divorce, Chet-yle was granted sole care,
custody and control of the three minor children and Curtis was ganted visitation.
2
I 10
1 Between August of 1994 and August of 1008, thc Montana Dcpartmcnt of Publ~c
Hcalth and Human Sewiccs (Department) reccived numerous reports alleging the Smith
children had been neglected and physically and sexually abused. The Department removed
the children from Cheryle's home in late August of 1998, and placed them in foster care with
a relative.
77 In September of 1998, Curtis filed a Motion to Amend the Final Parenting Plan, and
an affidavit in support of his motion alleging the children had been neglected and abused
while in Cheryle's custody. In January of 1999, Curtis filed a Motion for an Interim
Parenting Plan and the District Court granted him custody of the children in March of 1999,
pending the outcome of his motion to amend the final parentingplan. The District Court held
a hearing, at which both parties were present, on Curtis' motion to amend the final parenting
plan in July of 1999. The District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and
Order on August 5, 1999, adopting the proposed final parenting plan submitted by Curtis.
Cheryle appeals.
DISCUSSION
78 Cheryle's issue on appeal is difficult to discern from her brief, which does not comply
with the briefing requirements contained in the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Only
through close scrutiny of Cheryle's brief and supporting documentation are we able to
ascertain the issue upon which she is seeking review.
79 Most importantly, Cheryle does not support her arguments with citations to legal
authority as required by Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P. While we are willing to make
3
4 accommodations for parties appearing pro se, just as we arc willing to rulax tcclinical
B
!
requirements that do not go to the fundamental bases of such parties' appeals, a district
court's decision is presumed correct and an appellant bears the burden of establishing error
by that court. Matter o M.J. W., MT l 4 2 , I 18, 289 Mont. 232,q 18,96 1 P.2d lO5,T
f 1998
18 (citations omitted). It is not this Court's obligation to locate authorities or formulate
arguments for a party in support of positions taken on appeal. In re B.P., 1 MT 2 19, f
200
41, 306 Mont. 430, f 4 1 , 3 5 P.3d 291, f 41 (citation omitted). Cheryle fails to advance any
legal authority under which the District Court abused its discretion in entering Findings of
Fact, ConcIusions of Law and Order amending the final parenting plan. Accordingly,
Cheryle fails to meet her burden in this regard.
710 Affirmed.
We concur:
Justices