## Facts

- S.W.B.S. was born in December 2012 to Michala Berube (mother) and Bryan Sinram (father), who never married.
- In 2015, when the child was two, the Eleventh Judicial District Court approved the parties’ stipulated parenting plan.
- The plan provided a residential schedule of four days per week with Berube and three days per week with Sinram.
- The plan required joint decision-making for the child’s education and healthcare, and required the parents to make a good-faith effort to resolve disagreements through the plan’s dispute-resolution process before asking the court to intervene.
- The plan included a modification/review provision stating the schedule would be reviewed and modified as necessary upon a significant change in circumstances **or when the child began kindergarten**, to account for the child’s developmental changes, needs, and best interests.
- After entry of the plan, the parents experienced ongoing conflict about issues including vaccinations, schooling, and what the residential schedule should be once the child entered kindergarten.
- In 2017, following an unsuccessful mediation attempt, Sinram moved to (1) permit school enrollment, (2) modify child support, and (3) amend the parenting plan in anticipation of kindergarten the following school year.
- The district court granted Sinram’s request to vaccinate the child, denied his request to enroll the child in preschool, and amended the parenting plan to provide that, once the child enrolled in kindergarten, the child would reside primarily with Sinram during the school year, subject to liberal parenting time with Berube (with the child residing primarily with Berube during the summer).
- The district court found Sinram’s home was more “child-centered, stable, and structured,” and that Sinram was better equipped to support the child’s academic success.
- Although the district court cited the statute governing parenting-plan modifications, it relied on the parenting plan’s kindergarten review/modification provision rather than making a separate “changed circumstances” finding.
- Berube appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err in amending the parties’ parenting plan when it relied on the plan’s kindergarten-triggered review/modification provision rather than making an independent finding of changed circumstances under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219?
2. Were the district court’s best-interests findings sufficient to support the amended residential schedule making Sinram the primary residential parent during the school year?
3. Did the district court otherwise abuse its discretion in adopting the amended parenting plan?

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order amending the parenting plan.
- The Court held the district court did not err by relying on the parenting plan’s express provision calling for review and modification when the child began kindergarten, rather than requiring a separate showing of an unanticipated change in circumstances.
- The Court concluded the district court’s best-interests determination and related factual findings (including findings about stability, structure, and school support) were supported by the record and were not clearly erroneous.
- Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the Court upheld the amended schedule providing primary residence with Sinram during the school year and substantial parenting time for Berube.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219, a court modifying a parenting plan must determine that the modification serves the child’s best interests, and the statute generally contemplates a showing of changed circumstances.
- Parents may include in an initial parenting plan an event-based review/modification provision (such as entry into kindergarten) that anticipates a future schedule reassessment as part of the original judgment.
- When an agreed review/modification provision is triggered, a district court may amend the plan in line with that provision, so long as the court makes a best-interests determination based on the evidence.
- A district court’s parenting-plan rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the kindergarten-related amendment because the parties’ original parenting plan expressly required review and modification when the child began kindergarten, and the district court’s findings supported that the school-year residential schedule with Sinram (with liberal parenting time for Berube) served the child’s best interests.


In re S.W.B.S., 432 P.3d 709 (2019)