Opinion
DA 23-0212
08-08-2023
IN RE THE PARENTING OF M.B.. a minor child. UMBERTO FERRI, Petitioner and Appellee, and ANNELIESE N. BROWN, Respondent and Appellant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Appellant Anneliese N. Brown, through counsel, pursuant to M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a), for relief from an order of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, that denied her Motion to Stay Order Pending Appeal. Brown alleges that if the District Court's Order Re: Interim Parenting Plan is not stayed until this appeal is resolved, the child M.B., who is subject to the parenting plan, will be irreparably harmed. Appellee Umberto Ferri objects to Brown's motion for relief, arguing this Court should allow the District Court's denial of stay to stand because Brown has not demonstrated the requisite good cause for this Court to provide relief from the District Court's denial of stay. On June 20. 2023, we ordered that the motion be held in abeyance and remanded to the District Court to enter a written order in compliance with M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d), which requires "findings of fact and conclusions of law, or . . . supporting rationale, [providing] the relevant facts and legal authority on which the district court's order is based."'
On July 28. Brown filed a Notice of Issue w ith this Court advising that the District Court had not entered findings and requesting this Court to grant the Stay. On August 3, the District Court entered its revised order, including its findings and rationale, and advised the Court that it had not received notice of our June 20 Order until a deputy clerk of this Court e-mailed it to the presiding judge on August 2, 2023. We have now considered the District Court's findings and explanation for its decision to deny the requested stay.
Under M. R. App. P. 22(2), this Court will grant relief from an order denying a requested stay only upon a demonstration of good cause, among other considerations. Brown urges the Court to order a stay in the interests of justice until this matter can be resolved on appeal. Brown argues that "[t]he child continues to face emotional and psychological harm, which cannot be remedied on the other side of an appeal."
The District Court's findings recount the years-Iong history of this parenting dispute and its efforts to develop a plan for reintroducing M.B. to Ferri and establishing a child-parent relationship, including appointment of a guardian ad litem, psychological evaluation of the child with directives to evaluate M.B.'s best interest in the context of establishing a parent-child relationship with her father, and referral to an additional professional person to facilitate the reintroduction. The court notes that "[e]very incremental step in this case has been fraught, problematic and contested.' M.B.'s parenting has been litigated since she was three years old, and she is now twelve. The court concluded that the evaluations and protections put into place are more than sufficient to protect the child's best interests, and that a stay at this point would be contrary to her best interests.
Upon review of both parties' submissions and the District Court's August 3 Amended Order, we conclude that Appellant has not demonstrated good cause for relief from the order denying her motion for stay.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Appellant's motion for relief from the District Court's Order denying stay of judgment pending appeal is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record, to the Clerk of the Flathead County District Court, and to the Hon. Robert B. Allison.