Opinion
DA 23-0711
07-02-2024
IN THE PARENTING OF B.C.H. and T.C.H., PAUL HENION, Petitioner and Appellee, and GENAVIERE BRADFORD, Respondent and Appellant.
For Appellant: David J. Lee, Caydon C. Keller, Lee Law Office PC, Shelby, Montana For Appellees: Tiffany B. Lonnevik, Lonnevik Law Firm, PC, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 29, 2024
Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DR-08-525(A) Honorable Amy Eddy, Presiding Judge
For Appellant: David J. Lee, Caydon C. Keller, Lee Law Office PC, Shelby, Montana
For Appellees: Tiffany B. Lonnevik, Lonnevik Law Firm, PC, Kalispell, Montana
OPINION
BETH BAKER, JUSTICE
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, we decide this case by memorandum opinion. It shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Genaviere Bradford appeals the Eleventh Judicial District Court's November 15, 2023 Judgment against her to the extent it awards damages to Paul Henion, individually and as parent and guardian of their oldest son B.C.H. Bradford does not appeal the court's award to Henion of his attorney's fees and costs. Concluding that the District Court lacked legal authority to award damages in this parenting plan case, we reverse the appealed damage awards and remand for entry of an amended judgment.
¶3 Bradford and Henion, who were never married, had two children during their relationship. Henion filed a petition for parenting plan in September 2008, prior to the birth of the parties' youngest child. They agreed on a Stipulated Final Parenting Plan and a Stipulation for Child Support and Medical Support, which the District Court approved. In September 2018, following the birth of their second child, the parties entered into a Stipulated Amended Parenting Plan, which the court also approved. It provided parenting time to each parent on an approximately equal basis. In January 2019, when the children were ten and four years of age, the District Court ordered an emergency amended parenting plan on Henion's pro se motion. After a show-cause hearing, the court entered an interim parenting plan. It later referred the matter to the Eleventh Judicial District's Family Court Services program. With the assistance of that program, the parties entered into another Stipulated Parenting Plan in June 2019. It provided Henion with primary residential custody of the children, with Bradford having parenting time two days each week and alternate Saturdays and Sundays but no overnight visits until recommended by the children's counselor. If the counselor raised no concerns for three months, the parties could resume their roughly equal parenting schedule.
¶4 Then followed a multi-year torrent of filings with the court, accusations, and reports to the Child and Family Services Division of the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (CFS), interspersed with additional court orders and appointments, including a parenting facilitator and a subsequent "parenting enforcer." This culminated in a show-cause hearing on August 25, 2023, at which both parties were present with counsel and several witnesses testified. By then, Henion also had filed a Motion for Statutory Damages and Fees for False Reporting, which he requested the court to hear during the same show-cause hearing.
¶5 Three days after the hearing, the District Court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order amending the parenting plan, which it filed under seal. The court found that Bradford had made numerous false allegations to CFS regarding Henion, his household, and the children that constituted a substantial change in circumstances. The court found in relevant part:
The Respondent's intentional and numerous false allegations to CFS regarding the Petitioner, his household, and the children shocks the
conscience of the Court and clearly demonstrates the Respondent is not working towards the best interests of the children, has taken action to severely undermine their mental health and stability, subjected them to unwarranted CFS and law enforcement involvement, and taken action to undermine and destroy their relationship with the Petitioner.
The Amended Final Parenting Plan placed B.C.H., by then fifteen years old, in the sole residential custody of his father, with Bradford to have parenting time at the child's request. The court awarded Bradford weekly parenting time with T.C.H. on Thursday afternoons and every other weekend. Bradford has not appealed this Amended Parenting Plan or challenged any of the court's factual findings.
¶6 Following completion of briefing on Henion's motion for damages and fees, the District Court entered another order on September 20, 2023. It found Bradford "liable for false reporting" under § 41-3-203(1), MCA. Noting that the statute provides immunity from liability for persons making a report of child abuse or neglect, the court observed that if the person making the report "'was grossly negligent or acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or provided information knowing the information to be false,'" they are no longer immune from liability. See § 41-3-203(1), MCA. Relying on its detailed findings of fact, the court explained that several of Bradford's reports to CFS "were at the very least grossly negligent in that the Respondent failed to use slight care to confirm the veracity of the allegations," and that several others "were patently false." The District Court held that Bradford "is liable for false reporting under Mont. Code Ann. § 41-3-203(1)" and set a hearing for damages.
¶7 At a November 2023 hearing, the court received evidence of Henion's attorney's fees and costs arising from the fallout of Bradford's false allegations against him and of what the court characterized as "the extraordinary impacts" these false reports had on Henion and the parties' son B.C.H. The court made additional findings of fact from the evidence presented and found it reasonable to award Henion, individually, $36,805 for the detriment caused to him by Bradford's conduct, which included $26,805 in related costs and attorney's fees. The court additionally found it reasonable to award Henion, as parent and guardian of B.C.H., $25,000 for the detriment caused to B.C.H. by Bradford's conduct. In its conclusions of law, the court noted its previous determination that Bradford's false reports to CFS "were made with gross negligence, malicious purpose, and were known to be false." It reiterated that Bradford "is not immune from liability for her reports to CFS." The court relied on § 27-1-202, MCA, which provides, "Every person who suffers detriment from the unlawful act or omission of another may recover from the person in fault a compensation for it in money, which is called damages." It also cited § 27-1-317, MCA, which defines the measure of damages for breach of an obligation not arising from contract as "the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not."
¶8 Henion's motion for damages and fees was predicated on a 2023 amendment to § 41-3-203, MCA. The amendment, effective upon the Governor's signature on May 19, 2023, added a new subsection (2), which provides:
Any person who knowingly makes a false report or allegation of child abuse, abandonment, or neglect or makes a report in bad faith is liable to the party
or parties against whom the report was made for the amount of actual damages sustained or for statutory damages of $2,500, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees and costs. If the person acted with malicious purpose, the court may award treble actual damages or treble statutory damages, whichever is greater.
Henion requested treble statutory damages in the amount of $7,500 on the ground that Bradford acted with malice. He made a similar request for $7,500 on behalf of his domestic partner, who also was the subject of Bradford's false reports, and for $7,500 on behalf of B.C.H. for the false allegations Bradford made against their child. Bradford opposed Henion's motion on the principal ground that her reports to CFS that gave rise to the District Court's findings and order occurred in 2020 and in early April 2023, before the statutory amendment took effect. She noted that the bill had no retroactivity clause. Bradford argued additionally that the court had no jurisdiction to make any award to Henion's domestic partner.
¶9 Acknowledging their inapplicability, the District Court did not rely on the 2023 statutory amendments in its award. It cited the amendments in a footnote, noting that they were "not in effect at the time of these false reports."
¶10 Bradford does not contest on appeal the District Court's award to Henion of attorney's fees and costs. She challenges the separate award of damages on the ground that the statute on which Henion relied was not in effect and provided no legal authority for the court's awards. Bradford argues that the applicable version of § 41-3-203(1), MCA, stripped a person of immunity but did not serve itself as authority to award damages. She maintains that no other authority allowed the court to award damages in this parenting plan action. Henion responds that the District Court appropriately relied on § 27-1-317, MCA, and not § 41-3-203(2), MCA (2023), in awarding damages. Henion maintains, "Just because there was no measure of damages statutorily codified" at the time of Bradford's false reporting "does not mean she owes nothing for the consequences of her wrongdoing."
¶11 Whether the District Court relied on proper authority to award damages in this case is a matter of law. "We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether its interpretation of the law is correct." In re Marriage of Heidema, 2007 MT 20, ¶ 8, 335 Mont. 362, 152 P.3d 112 (citation omitted). See also City of Helena v. Svee, 2014 MT 311, ¶ 7, 377 Mont. 158, 339 P.3d 32 ("[A] district court's conclusion regarding the existence of legal authority to award attorney fees [is reviewed for correctness].").
¶12 There is no dispute that § 41-3-203(2), MCA (2023), did not provide authority for the award of damages in this case. Prior to its amendment, the statute cloaked a person reporting child abuse with immunity "from any liability, civil or criminal, that might otherwise be incurred or imposed" and created an exception, allowing the immunity shield to be lifted if the report was made maliciously or with gross negligence. It did not create a cause of action. Recognizing this, the District Court instead cited §§ 27-1-202 and -317, MCA, in its order. Contained in the title governing civil liability and remedies, however, those statutes do not confer authority on a court in a domestic relations proceeding to award one parent damages against another. Henion brought this action in 2008 under Title 40 to establish a parenting plan for the parties' minor child(ren). Like a dissolution of marriage, actions for a parenting plan "are statutory proceedings." In re Marriage of Heidema, ¶ 13. The questions to be determined involve the custody and support of the parties' minor children, based on a determination of their best interests. See §§ 40-4-211(1), (4), -212, MCA. No statute in Title 40, chapter 4, authorizes a civil claim for damages. Absent a statutory remedy, such a claim is based in tort, such as a claim for negligence or infliction of emotional distress. In that case, the Title 27 statutes the District Court cited set the applicable standards for recovery and the measure of damages to be awarded.
¶13 The false reports the District Court found Bradford made with malice or at least with gross negligence occurred in early April 2023. Henion has the right to bring a separate tort action within the applicable period of limitations to seek damages for that conduct.
¶14 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. Lacking the authority now provided by statute, the District Court's interpretation and application of the law were incorrect to the extent it awarded damages in this parenting plan action. The damage awards to Henion individually and as parent and guardian of B.C.H. are reversed, and the award of attorney's fees and costs is affirmed. The case is remanded for entry of an amended judgment in accordance with this Opinion.
We concur: JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA, LAURIE McKINNON, INGRID GUSTAFSON, JIM RICE