## Facts

- Debbie Groves, the birth mother of L.C., signed a document in January 1994 terminating her parental rights, relinquishing custody to Lutheran Social Services (LSS), and consenting to adoption.
- Before the adoption, Groves and prospective adoptive parents Lon and Loralee Clark executed a written visitation agreement drafted by LSS without attorney involvement.
- The agreement granted Groves “unrestricted” in-person visitation with two days’ notice, unrestricted telephone contact, and authority to take L.C. out of school for an emergency trip.
- The district court terminated Groves’s parental rights in February 1994 and granted custody to LSS; the Clarks adopted L.C. in September 1994.
- The parties followed the agreement for about a year, but in June 1995 the Clarks refused to allow Groves to take L.C. on an out-of-town weekend trip, limiting visits to their home.
- Groves petitioned for specific performance; in an earlier appeal, the Montana Supreme Court held such visitation contracts enforceable if continued visitation serves the child’s best interests and remanded for a best-interests hearing.
- On remand, the district court received expert evidence of a significant Groves–L.C. bond and likely abandonment-related harm absent contact.
- The district court found post-adoption visitation was in L.C.’s best interests and ordered a modified schedule: one unsupervised weekend per month, at least one phone call per week, shared transportation costs, and counseling; it denied the Clarks’ Rule 59 motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that post-adoption visitation with the birth mother was in the child’s best interests.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by modifying the parties’ visitation agreement on its own initiative rather than enforcing its “unrestricted” terms.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying the adoptive parents’ motion for a new trial under Rule 59, M.R.Civ.P.

## Decision

- Affirmed.
- The best-interests finding was not clearly erroneous.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the agreement to impose a structured schedule serving the child’s welfare.
- The denial of a new trial was not error.

## Legal Principles

- Post-adoption visitation agreements between birth and adoptive parents are enforceable when continued visitation is in the child’s best interests.
- Trial courts must independently determine the child’s best interests before enforcing post-adoption visitation arrangements.
- In custody and visitation matters, courts have equitable authority to craft and modify visitation terms to protect the child’s welfare, even when the parties’ contract uses broad language.
- Denial of a Rule 59 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a new trial requires a showing of a recognized Rule 59 ground supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court upheld continued post-adoption contact between the birth mother and child because the evidence supported the child’s best interests, and it confirmed that trial courts may modify a visitation contract’s terms to impose a practical schedule aimed at protecting the child’s welfare.


Groves v. Clark, 982 P.2d 446 (Mont. 1999)