Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 40-9-101 (2026)

Application Of Montana Rules Of Civil Procedure

✓ 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 9. GRANDPARENT-GRANDCHILD CONTACT

Part 1. General Provisions

Application Of Montana Rules Of Civil Procedure

40-9-101. Application of Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. (1) Except as otherwise provided, the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure apply to all proceedings under this section and 40-9-102.

(2) A proceeding for grandparent-grandchild contact under this section and 40-9-102 must be entitled, "In re the grandparent-grandchild contact of......"

(3) The initial pleading in all proceedings under this section and 40-9-102 must be denominated a petition. A responsive pleading must be denominated a response. Other pleadings must be denominated as provided in the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 17, L. 1979; amd. Sec. 32, Ch. 343, L. 1997.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Polasek v. Omura, 2006 MT 103 (Mont. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Polasek v. Omura, 2006 MT 103 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 3× “¶7 As Intervenors in the dissolution action between Alexander and Petra, the Polaseks filed a petition for contact with Olivia on February 2, 2004, pursuant to §§ 40-9-101 et seq., MCA. Following a bench trial, the District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law,…”

In Re the Marriage of Dreesbach, 875 P.2d 1018 (Mont. 1994). “See §§ 40-9-101 et seq., MCA. However, the record is clear that no independent grandparent or great-grandparent visitation rights have been sought or granted.”

Snyder v. Spaulding, 2010 MT 151 (Mont. 2010). “Notably, the case had not yet proceeded to a hearing on the merits of Sharon’s petition, and neither the stipulation nor the District Court’s order recites any of the findings specified in § 40-9-102, MCA, except that “it serves the best interests of the children for there *36…”

Glueckert v. Glueckert, 2015 MT 107 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 2× “¶10 The Legislature has adopted statutes providing for grandparent-grandchild contact, §§ 40-9-101 to -103, MCA. This Court recently summarized application of those provisions: The Court is required to make a determination as to whether the objecting parent is a fit parent, that…”

In Re Marriage of Dreesbach, 875 P.2d 1018 (Mont. 1994). “See §§ 40-9-101 et seq., MCA. However, the record is clear that no independent grandparent or great-grandparent visitation rights have been sought or granted.”

In re the Grandparents/Grandchild Contact of C.A.G., 2014 MT 290 (Mont. 2014). “Sections 40-9-101 to 103, MCA. The Court is required to make a determination as to whether the objecting parent is a fit parent, that is, whether the parent adequately cares for the child.”

In Re the Parenting of: A.M.O., 2024 MT 74N (Mont. 2024). · cites it 12× “Further, the court held that Keitel failed to follow the procedure outlined in § 40-9-101, MCA, which begins with the grandparent filing a separate petition.”

In Re Lfa, 2009 MT 363 (Mont. 2009). “We observed that Polasek was filed under the grandparent contact provisions of §§ 40-9-101 through 40-9-103, MCA, not under the nonparental statute.”

Filpula v. Ankney, 2009 MT 363 (Mont. 2009). “We observed that Polasek was filed under the grandparent contact provisions of §40-9-101 through 40-9-103, MCA, not under the nonparental statute.”

Grandchild visitation of A.L.U., 2025 MT 131 (Mont. 2025). “Sections 40-9-101–103, MCA.1 When considering a petition, a district court must first make a determination as to whether the objecting parent is a fit parent, which “must be determined on the basis of whether the parent adequately cares for the parent’s child.”

Gardner v. Gardner, 2014 MT 290 (Mont. 2014). “Contact may be granted over a fit parent’s objections, if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the contact would be in the best interest of the child and the presumption in favor of the parent’s wishes has been rebutted.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-9-101(2) — 2 cases

Polasek v. Omura, 2006 MT 103 (Mont. 2006). “¶7 As Intervenors in the dissolution action between Alexander and Petra, the Polaseks filed a petition for contact with Olivia on February 2, 2004, pursuant to §§ 40-9-101 et seq., MCA. Following a bench trial, the District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law,…”

In Re the Parenting of: A.M.O., 2024 MT 74N (Mont. 2024). “Further, the court held that Keitel failed to follow the procedure outlined in § 40-9-101, MCA, which begins with the grandparent filing a separate petition.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-9-101(3) — 1 case

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.