A Missoula law firm is seeking review of a Lake County custody case by the Montana Supreme Court, citing what they call a “gross injustice” committed by a local judge when he abruptly removed a young child from his mother's care have taken.
After a September hearing in Lake County, a district judge awarded sole custody of the 5-year-old child to his father in Oregon, depriving him of his Elmo community and his mother's full-time care, the mother's lawyers contend. The petition, filed by Spencer MacDonald of the MacDonald Law Office and Lance Jasper of Reep, Bell & Jasper, two Missoula-based law firms, calls for the state Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction over the case, the Daily Montanan reports.
On Sept. 11, Lake County District Judge Deborah Kim Christopher presided over a custody hearing between Shanna Spring ManyWounds, the mother, and Jonathan Whyte, the child's father. The hearing should mediate and produce a written parenting plan. The petition states that the court's order differed greatly from the parenting plans that both ManyWounds and Whyte had proposed.
People also read…
“At no time did Mr. Whyte ask to be made sole parent or even primary parent for (the child),” the petition states.
A transcript of the hearing is attached to the petition, which was filed Oct. 24.
Before the verdict, the child received full-time care from ManyWounds for the first five years of his life. The petition says there is no evidence that ManyWounds is “anything but a good mother.”
At the hearing in question, Christopher found that the five-year-old was kept too far away from his father. According to the petition and a copy of Christopher's parenting plan, starting that day, the judge gave the father full custody for the next five years of his life.
“I don’t want you to leave here thinking you’re bad,” Christopher told ManyWounds at the custody hearing, according to the transcript in the petition. “What you are is a helicopter mom.”
When ManyWounds raised concerns about trauma the child might suffer from a rapid and unexpected change in care, the judge claimed, “Trauma and even abuse build children's 'stress muscles' and make them stronger,” the petition states .
In the five weeks from the Sept. 11 hearing to the filing of the petition, the child had no contact with his mother, his lifelong primary caregiver, her attorneys say.
“The district court removed (the child) not only from his primary caregiver, but also from his extended family and friends, his home, his community and generally from the life to which he had become very accustomed and living happy,” the petition says.
Allegations of any kind of abuse by either parent were not raised at the hearing.
ManyWounds' attorneys claim that the judge's order on the custody agreement and parenting plan is inconsistent with state law, which is refuted by Christopher and Whyte.
In her response to the petition, Christopher admitted that she was emotional during the hearing, but said that the Supreme Court “must understand the domestic power and control that the mother has exercised over the child and the father,” and reiterated her Claiming that Whyte did not have adequate rights over his son.
She described what she saw at the Sept. 11 hearing as “shockingly disturbing.”
Christopher wrote that she drafted the parenting plan the next day but held off publishing it until “some of the dust and emotion cleared from one of the strangest, most painful and difficult hearings this court has held in 23 years.” “
Christopher's parenting plan banned all visitation between the five-year-old and ManyWounds, except for a plan developed by therapists. The court noted that no contact was “deadly serious,” citing alleged emotional abuse by the mother for breaking off the minor's relationship with his father.
ManyWounds' attorneys filed an additional motion Nov. 15 asking the Supreme Court to strike down Christopher's parenting plan. The motion argued that state law prohibits district judges from depriving parents of their right to see their children without evidence of abuse or neglect and asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the child while the case is pending into the care of ManyWounds.
A response brief filed Nov. 30 by Whyte's attorneys contends that transferring sole custody of the child to his father does not constitute an emergency and asks the court to deny ManyWounds' request. They also wrote that ManyWounds had not come to a status hearing to discuss the mandatory counseling necessary to see the child since he was transferred to Whyte's care, but MacDonald said in a phone call that ManyWounds did not have access to that Communication was granted with a school counselor who would receive a possible visit in the future.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will assume jurisdiction over the case, but MacDonald said he was encouraged that the Supreme Court has requested answers from the parties involved.
“The fact that the court has ordered responses shows that this is an extreme situation,” he said.
Zoë Buchli is the Missoulian's criminal justice reporter.
You must be logged in to respond.
Click on any reaction to log in.
Be the first to know
Get local news delivered to your inbox!
Comments are closed.