Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219 (2026)

Amendment Of Parenting Plan -- Mediation

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 40. FAMILY LAW

CHAPTER 4. TERMINATION OF MARRIAGE, CHILD CUSTODY, SUPPORT

Part 2. Support, Custody, Visitation, and Related Provisions

Amendment Of Parenting Plan -- Mediation

40-4-219. Amendment of parenting plan -- mediation. (1) The court may in its discretion amend a prior parenting plan if it finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior plan or that were unknown to the court at the time of entry of the prior plan, that a change has occurred in the circumstances of the child and that the amendment is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.

(a) In determining how a proposed change will affect the child, the court shall consider the potential impact of the change on the criteria in 40-4-212 and whether:

(i) the parents agree to the amendment;

(ii) the child has been integrated into the family of the petitioner with consent of the parents;

(iii) the child is 14 years of age or older and desires the amendment; or

(iv) one parent has willfully and consistently:

(A) refused to allow the child to have any contact with the other parent; or

(B) attempted to frustrate or deny contact with the child by the other parent.

(b) If one parent has changed or intends to change the child's residence in a manner that significantly affects the child's contact with the other parent, the court shall consider, in addition to all the criteria in 40-4-212 and subsection (1)(a):

(i) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the nonrelocating parent and the child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties;

(ii) the reasons of each parent for seeking or opposing the change of residence;

(iii) whether the parent seeking to change the child's residence has demonstrated a willingness to promote the relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent; and

(iv) whether reasonable alternatives to the proposed change of residence are available to the parent seeking to relocate.

(2) A court may modify a de facto parenting arrangement in accordance with the factors set forth in 40-4-212.

(3) The court shall presume a parent is not acting in the child's best interest if the parent does any of the acts specified in subsection (1)(a)(iv) or (8).

(4) The court may amend the prior parenting plan based on subsection (1)(b) to provide a new residential schedule for parental contact with the child and to apportion transportation costs between the parents.

(5) Attorney fees and costs must be assessed against a party seeking frivolous or repeated amendment if the court finds that the amendment action is vexatious and constitutes harassment.

(6) A parenting plan may be amended pursuant to 40-4-221 upon the death of one parent.

(7) As used in this section, "prior parenting plan" means a parenting determination contained in a judicial decree or order made in a parenting proceeding. In proceedings for amendment under this section, a proposed amended parenting plan must be filed and served with the motion for amendment and with the response to the motion for amendment. Preference must be given to carrying out the parenting plan.

(8) (a) If a parent or other person residing in that parent's household has been convicted of any of the crimes listed in subsection (8)(b), the other parent or any other person who has been granted rights to the child pursuant to court order may file an objection to the current parenting order with the court. The parent or other person having rights to the child pursuant to court order shall give notice to the other parent of the objection as provided by the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, and the other parent has 21 days from the notice to respond. If the parent who receives notice of objection fails to respond within 21 days, the parenting rights of that parent are suspended until further order of the court. If that parent responds and objects, a hearing must be held within 30 days of the response.

(b) This subsection (8) applies to the following crimes:

(i) deliberate homicide, as described in 45-5-102;

(ii) mitigated deliberate homicide, as described in 45-5-103;

(iii) sexual assault, as described in 45-5-502;

(iv) sexual intercourse without consent, as described in 45-5-503;

(v) deviate sexual conduct with an animal or dead human body, as described in 45-2-101 and prohibited under 45-8-218;

(vi) incest, as described in 45-5-507;

(vii) child sex trafficking, as described in 45-5-711;

(viii) endangering the welfare of children, as described in 45-5-622;

(ix) partner or family member assault of the type described in 45-5-206(1)(a);

(x) sexual abuse of children, as described in 45-5-625; and

(xi) strangulation of a partner or family member, as described in 45-5-215.

(9) Except in cases of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or threat of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by one parent against the other parent or the child or when a parent has been convicted of a crime enumerated in subsection (8)(b), the court may, in its discretion, order the parties to participate in a dispute resolution process to assist in resolving any conflicts between the parties regarding amendment of the parenting plan. The dispute resolution process may include counseling or mediation by a specified person or agency, and court action.

(10) (a) Except as provided in subsection (10)(b), a court-ordered or de facto modification of a parenting plan based in whole or in part on military service orders of a parent is temporary and reverts to the previous parenting plan at the end of the military service. If a motion for an amendment of a parenting plan is filed after a parent returns from military service, the court may not consider a parent's absence due to that military service in its determination of the best interest of the child.

(b) A parent who has performed or is performing military service, as defined in 10-1-1003, may consent to a temporary or permanent modification of a parenting plan:

(i) for the duration of the military service; or

(ii) that continues past the end of the military service.

History: En. 48-339 by Sec. 39, Ch. 536, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 48-339; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 127, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 410, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 449, L. 1983; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 509, L. 1987; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 303, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 405, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 350, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 467, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 23, Ch. 343, L. 1997; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 356, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 9, Ch. 88, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 350, L. 2013; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 394, L. 2017; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 219, L. 2021; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 167, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 465, L. 2023.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 202 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: In re Bessette, 434 P.3d 894 (Mont. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re Bessette, 434 P.3d 894 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 49× “¶18 A party seeking amendment or modification of a prior parenting plan must file a motion for amendment supported by an affidavit showing of the alleged change in circumstances and necessity for modification specified in § 40-4-219(1), MCA.”

In Re the Marriage of Syverson, 931 P.2d 691 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 70× “arrangements to which a child has become accustomed, and out of concern that the applicable standard for granting a motion to modify custody arrangements is not clear from our prior decisions, we adopt the following standard: Motions or petitions to modify a sole custody…”

In Re the Marriage of Whyte Couvi, 2012 MT 45 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 51× “Section 40-4-219, MCA. ¶17 At the hearing, Leanah was asked by Charles’ counsel what she believed were the changed circumstances warranting an amendment of the Parenting Plan.”

In Re the Marriage of Oehlke, 2002 MT 79 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 18× “If a request for modification of a joint custody decree would have the effect of substantially changing the primary residence of the parties’ children, the court, before engaging in modification, must first find that the requirements of § 40-4-219, MCA, have been met. Syverson,…”

Moseman v. Moseman, 830 P.2d 1304 (Mont. 1992). · cites it 50× “II Section 40-4-219, MCA, governs the court's decision to modify a prior custody decree.”

In Re Marriage of Johnson, 879 P.2d 689 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 25× “The District Court held, in other words, that modification was justified under either the “best interest” test set forth in § 40-4-212, MCA, or the “serious endangerment” test set forth in § 40-4-219, MCA. On appeal, Jerome argues that since the physical custody and visitation…”

In Re the Marriage of Allison, 887 P.2d 1217 (Mont. 1994). · cites it 42× “STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court recently clarified the standard by which we review child custody modification cases: Motions or petitions to modify a sole custody provision or terminate a joint custody provision must satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth in §…”

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 66× “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

In Re the Parenting of R.J.N., 2017 MT 249 (Mont. 2017). · cites it 124× “The problem is that § 40-4-219, MCA, requires a showing of changed circumstances “and that the amendment is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.”

Custody of Arneson-Nelson, 2001 MT 242 (Mont. 2001). · cites it 16× “In her testimony, she recommended that the court continue to suspend Nelson's visitation rights with Sawyer until Nelson receives mental health therapy.”

In Re the Marriage of Klatt, 2013 MT 17 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 28× “Did the District Court comply with § 40-4-219, MCA, when it amended the prior parenting plan ? ¶4 2.”

In Re the Marriage of Burk, 2002 MT 173 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 18× “” ¶13 Jack also relies on several of our cases for the proposition that a default judgment precludes relitigation of custody proceedings which do not meet the threshold change of circumstances requirement of § 40-4-219, MCA.”

Show all 202 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1) — 75 cases

In re Bessette, 434 P.3d 894 (Mont. 2019). “¶18 A party seeking amendment or modification of a prior parenting plan must file a motion for amendment supported by an affidavit showing of the alleged change in circumstances and necessity for modification specified in § 40-4-219(1), MCA.”

In Re the Marriage of Whyte Couvi, 2012 MT 45 (Mont. 2012). “Section 40-4-219, MCA. ¶17 At the hearing, Leanah was asked by Charles’ counsel what she believed were the changed circumstances warranting an amendment of the Parenting Plan.”

Custody of Arneson-Nelson, 2001 MT 242 (Mont. 2001). “In her testimony, she recommended that the court continue to suspend Nelson's visitation rights with Sawyer until Nelson receives mental health therapy.”

In Re the Marriage of Nies, 2003 MT 100 (Mont. 2003).

In Re the Marriage of Burk, 2002 MT 173 (Mont. 2002). “” ¶13 Jack also relies on several of our cases for the proposition that a default judgment precludes relitigation of custody proceedings which do not meet the threshold change of circumstances requirement of § 40-4-219, MCA.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(a) — 7 cases

In Re Custody of JMD, 857 P.2d 708 (Mont. 1993).

In Re the Parenting of R.J.N., 2017 MT 249 (Mont. 2017). “The problem is that § 40-4-219, MCA, requires a showing of changed circumstances “and that the amendment is necessary to serve the best interest of the child.”

In Re the Marriage of Ansell, 895 P.2d 619 (Mont. 1995).

Northcutt v. McLaughlin (In re G.M.N.), 433 P.3d 715 (Mont. 2019).

In Re the Custody of Holm, 698 P.2d 414 (Mont. 1985).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(a)(iv) — 1 case

Marriage of Greenlow & Losinski, 2024 MT 258N (Mont. 2024).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(a)(iv)(A) — 1 case

Marriage of Handy, 2026 MT 90 (Mont. 2026).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(b) — 6 cases

In Re the Marriage Paradis, 689 P.2d 1263 (Mont. 1984).

In Re The Parenting of: D.C.S., 2025 MT 179 (Mont. 2025).

In Re the Marriage of McClain, 849 P.2d 194 (Mont. 1993).

Parenting of J.M.N, IV, 2022 MT 106N (Mont. 2022).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(c) — 17 cases

In Re the Marriage of Sarsfield, 671 P.2d 595 (Mont. 1983).

Marriage of Marez & Marshall, 2014 MT 333 (Mont. 2014).

In Re the Marriage of Ansell, 895 P.2d 619 (Mont. 1995).

In Re the Marriage of Syverson, 931 P.2d 691 (Mont. 1997). “arrangements to which a child has become accustomed, and out of concern that the applicable standard for granting a motion to modify custody arrangements is not clear from our prior decisions, we adopt the following standard: Motions or petitions to modify a sole custody…”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(d) — 6 cases

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

Marriage of Rannebarger, 2014 MT 347N (Mont. 2014).

Marriage of Buck, 1998 MT 166N (Mont. 1998).

Custody of L.S. K.S., 1999 MT 167N (Mont. 1999).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(d)(i) — 1 case

In re Johnson, 430 P.3d 1006 (Mont. 2018).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(d)(ii) — 1 case

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(e) — 4 cases

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

In Re the Marriage of Allison, 887 P.2d 1217 (Mont. 1994). “STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court recently clarified the standard by which we review child custody modification cases: Motions or petitions to modify a sole custody provision or terminate a joint custody provision must satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth in §…”

Marriage of Solem, 2020 MT 141 (Mont. 2020).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(e)(ii) — 2 cases

Moseman v. Moseman, 830 P.2d 1304 (Mont. 1992). “II Section 40-4-219, MCA, governs the court's decision to modify a prior custody decree.”

In Re the Marriage of McClain, 849 P.2d 194 (Mont. 1993).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(1)(f) — 2 cases

In Re the Marriage of Ansell, 895 P.2d 619 (Mont. 1995).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(10)(a) — 1 case

In re the Marriage of Schmidt, 2014 MT 182 (Mont. 2014).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(2) — 4 cases

In Re the Marriage of Stout, 701 P.2d 729 (Mont. 1985).

Mikkelson v. Mikkelson, 602 P.2d 984 (Mont. 1979).

Custody of Wilson, 1998 MT 92N (Mont. 1998).

Custody Paternity of J.D (Mont. 1993).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(2)(c) — 1 case

Mikkelson v. Mikkelson, 602 P.2d 984 (Mont. 1979).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(3) — 8 cases

Moseman v. Moseman, 830 P.2d 1304 (Mont. 1992). “II Section 40-4-219, MCA, governs the court's decision to modify a prior custody decree.”

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

In Re the Marriage of Klatt, 2013 MT 17 (Mont. 2013). “Did the District Court comply with § 40-4-219, MCA, when it amended the prior parenting plan ? ¶4 2.”

Jacobsen v. Thomas, 2004 MT 273 (Mont. 2004).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(4) — 1 case

In Re the Marriage of West, 758 P.2d 282 (Mont. 1988).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(5) — 10 cases

In Re the Marriage of Miller, 825 P.2d 189 (Mont. 1992).

Snyder v. Spaulding, 2010 MT 151 (Mont. 2010).

Marriage of Brown, 2016 MT 299 (Mont. 2016).

Parenting of Z.D.L.-B. v. Batey, 2016 MT 164 (Mont. 2016).

KOEPLIN v. Crandall, 2010 MT 70 (Mont. 2010).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(7) — 5 cases

Marriage of Brown, 2016 MT 299 (Mont. 2016).

In Re the Marriage of Zuelke, 909 P.2d 684 (Mont. 1995).

Marriage of Cox, 2015 MT 78N (Mont. 2015).

Parenting of V.W., A Minor Child, 2026 MT 99N (Mont. 2026).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(8) — 1 case

Marriage of Buck, 1998 MT 166N (Mont. 1998).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(9) — 2 cases

Hendershott v. Westphal, 2011 MT 73 (Mont. 2011).

Parenting of P.H.R. & P.H.R., 2021 MT 231 (Mont. 2021).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(a) — 2 cases

Moseman v. Moseman, 830 P.2d 1304 (Mont. 1992). “II Section 40-4-219, MCA, governs the court's decision to modify a prior custody decree.”

In Re the Marriage of Boyer, 908 P.2d 665 (Mont. 1995).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(a)(iv) — 1 case

Parenting of F.L.F.L.K., 2025 MT 41 (Mont. 2025).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(b) — 1 case

In Re the Marriage of Bolton, 690 P.2d 401 (Mont. 1984).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(c) — 1 case

Marriage of Hannum, 2005 MT 98N (Mont. 2005).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l) — 3 cases

Marriage of Kessler (Mont. 1995).

Marriage of Whetham (Mont. 1995).

Marriage of Herbst (Mont. 1996).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(a) — 4 cases

Fitzgerald v. Brown, 857 P.2d 708 (Mont. 1993).

In Re Marriage of Johnson, 879 P.2d 689 (Mont. 1994). “The District Court held, in other words, that modification was justified under either the “best interest” test set forth in § 40-4-212, MCA, or the “serious endangerment” test set forth in § 40-4-219, MCA. On appeal, Jerome argues that since the physical custody and visitation…”

In Re the Marriage of Stephenson, 750 P.2d 1073 (Mont. 1988).

McDowell v. McDowell, 868 P.2d 1250 (Mont. 1994).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(b) — 1 case

In Re the Marriage of Gahm, 722 P.2d 1138 (Mont. 1986).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(c) — 13 cases

In Re the Marriage of Starks, 855 P.2d 527 (Mont. 1993).

In Re the Marriage of Sarsfield, 671 P.2d 595 (Mont. 1983).

In Re the Marriage of Gallagher, 880 P.2d 1303 (Mont. 1994).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(d) — 4 cases

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

In Re the Marriage of D'Alton, 2009 MT 184 (Mont. 2009).

Marriage of Olson, 2005 MT 111 (Mont. 2005).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(d)(ii) — 3 cases

Jacobsen v. Thomas, 2004 MT 273 (Mont. 2004).

In Re the Marriage of Carter, 2003 MT 19 (Mont. 2003).

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(e) — 2 cases

Marriage of Guffin v. Plaisted-Harman, 2010 MT 100 (Mont. 2010). “¶ 11 Section 40-4-219, MCA, describes the circumstances under which a parenting plan can be amended.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(e)(ii) — 1 case

Moseman v. Moseman, 830 P.2d 1304 (Mont. 1992). “II Section 40-4-219, MCA, governs the court's decision to modify a prior custody decree.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219(l)(f) — 4 cases

In Re Marriage of Abrahamson, 924 P.2d 1334 (Mont. 1996).

In Re the Marriage of Huotari, 943 P.2d 1295 (Mont. 1997).

McDowell v. McDowell, 868 P.2d 1250 (Mont. 1994).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.