In a 5-0 decision, the Montana Supreme Court chose what justices call an “extraordinary remedy” of asserting “supervisory control” over a custody case in Lake County. The decision, issued Jan. 2, returned a 5-year-old child to the custody of his mother, Shanna Spring ManyWounds of Elmo, and transferred the case from District Judge Deborah “Kim” Christopher to Judge Molly Owen.
In the Supreme Court ruling, the justices wrote that Christopher “erred as a matter of law” and caused a “gross injustice” by abruptly removing the child from his mother's care, giving the father full custody for the next five years and excluded the mother from any contact with her son.
The case first came to district court last April when the little boy's father, Jonathan Whyte, who lives in Oregon, asked the court for a formal parenting plan. According to court documents, Whyte typically visited the boy four to five days a year at his mother's home in Elmo, under the supervision of ManyWounds or her mother.
He requested permission to bring the child (CLW) to Oregon and ultimately allow him to spend summer and winter vacations and alternating holidays with Whyte until 2025. He also wanted immediate “unsupervised” visits with his son in Montana for up to three days at a time and the obtaining of a passport for his son so that CLW could meet his father's extended family in Jamaica.
ManyWounds was unwilling to “guarantee” Whyte would be able to bring her son to Oregon until she was sure the little boy was comfortable in his father’s care; and she wanted her son to wait until he was 14 before getting a passport.
This impasse led to their appearance in Judge Christopher's court on September 11th.
According to court documents, ManyWounds told the judge she felt a strong bond had not been formed between her son and his father. “I would like to see time spent building the relationship… before the child is stripped of everything he or she has ever known.”
Throughout the proceedings, she indicated that she tried to encourage and support Whyte's visits by allowing him to stay overnight at her home, providing him with transportation during his stay in Montana, and checking with him regularly through her Keeping son updated.
The judge initially appeared willing to allow the father to have his son on alternating holidays, with those visits occurring in Montana over the next two years and then in the summer beginning in 2005.
According to court documents, Christopher also told ManyWounds that Whyte's proposal was “a better offer than you would get from me.”
The tone of the hearing appears to have changed at this point, with Christopher asking the mother: “Why do you feel like you have more rights over the child than she does?”
Christopher also told ManyWounds, “The child should be with his father,” adding that the court “could send him home tonight for the next five years.”
After a break, Judge Christopher asked Lake County Schools Superintendent Carolyn Hall to testify about child development. Hall testified that the “total absence” of a parent can have a negative impact on the child and that it is difficult for children to change custody too frequently. She also suggested that ManyWounds initially accompany her son to Oregon to make the transition less scary.
Christopher then recounted her own experience with shared custody, concluding that while the experience was “bad…” [her children are] better for it in the ability to deal with the world.”
She continued, “If you can build resilience, it doesn't come from the fun times, but from the opportunities where you don't have to strain or develop what I call stress muscles.”
She then revealed that she had decided that ManyWounds would immediately release the child to his father, saying that although she had originally planned to support Whyte's parenting plan, she now felt that Whyte should have him because ManyWounds had received CLW in the first five years for the next five years.
When ManyWounds asked the judge to reconsider and implement Whyte's plan, the judge responded: “Honestly, you are a mature adult. If you can’t figure it out, now it’s in front of me, now it’s my decision.”
The judge insisted that the transfer of custody must occur immediately, telling ManyWounds that “overprotection of children results in children being unable to care for themselves,” again citing her own experience in the case. “So you're going to get a gift, I don't think you ever expected it.”
She asked law enforcement to immediately turn the child over to Whyte and ordered ManyWounds to bring the child's belongings to the courtroom so Whyte could pick him up on his way out of town. She also advised the father to enroll the child in therapy and decided that CLW should not have contact with his mother until the therapist deemed it appropriate.
Whyte did not have a car seat, which ManyWounds volunteered to provide.
Christopher entered an order on September 19 giving the father sole custody of the child for the next five years. ManyWounds filed a motion for supervision on Oct. 24 after a final parenting plan had not yet been issued, saying it had not contacted her son and did not know whether Whyte had taken steps to obtain therapy for the child.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that “supervisory control is an extraordinary remedy” invoked only to resolve legal questions “or when urgent or urgent circumstances render the normal appeal process inadequate.” The justices also noted that the case must meet at least one of three other criteria, including “the other court acts on the basis of an error of law and causes gross injustice.”
Because Christopher had not filed a final parenting plan until November 2, nearly two months after the initial hearing, and because at the time of the Supreme Court's decision, “CLW had been prohibited from any contact with his mother for over three and a half months,” the came Judge concluded the case met the standard for “an urgent or emergency situation.”
The Supreme Court also argued that the lower court “erred in law and caused a gross injustice” by improperly considering “the best interests of the child,” as required by Montana law.
The judges conclude that Christopher “failed to establish a parenting plan consistent with the best interests of CLW” and instead wrote a plan “whose stated purpose was to punish ManyWounds for persuading the court to judge them.” treated Whyte unfairly and to reward Whyte for it.” She took a liking to him and intentionally exposed CLW to potential trauma in a misguided attempt to develop “the stress muscles” of a child who the court found was overprotective of his mother and grandmother had been.”
The judges added that “one of the more troubling aspects of Judge Christopher's rulings in this case is the damage likely to have been done to the largely amicable co-parenting relationship that ManyWounds and Whyte had established,” and hoped that the parents “could repair this relationship and co-parent successfully.” CLW in the future.”
Christopher responded to ManyWounds' request that the Supreme Court issued a “Writ of Supervisory Control” on November 2, the same day she signed her final parenting plan. In her response, Christopher writes that she found the custody hearing “shockingly disturbing” and that ManyWounds was unwilling to accept Whyte's “incredibly sensible parenting plan” and “the control, power and authority” she allegedly exercised over the father's rights seen accepting… in almost 23 years on the bench.”
Christopher also wrote that she had drafted a parenting plan “the very next day” after the Sept. 11 hearing, but recognizing that “there was significant emotion in the draft,” she did not revisit the plan until October 28. Then, she writes, it was over. For seven hours she reviewed the case “with a more judicial temperament.”
In her response to the judges, Christopher also accused the mother of violating the court's order not to have contact with the child, stating that “if the father is not allowed, this child will likely end up in the criminal justice system.” to form a bond with one's son.” distorted parenting carried out by the mother and not stopped by the father.”
In her parenting plan signed November 2, she also accuses the maternal grandmother, Tania Osborn, of contempt of court for “verbally attacking the father in the courtroom” and orders that the mother and “especially” the grandmother do so are not permitted to have contact with the child in person, in writing, by telephone, or through electronic devices unless approved by a therapist.
While the justices acknowledged that the case appeared to have “caused genuine distress for Judge Christopher,” they said she then had “a duty to either resolve the dispute in a fair and impartial manner or to withdraw…”
“Instead, she unfortunately made a decision that appears to have arisen from her desire to punish one parent and reward the other, at the expense of the well-being of a 5-year-old child…”
Comments are closed.