07/28/2026
DA 25-0620 Case Number: DA 25-0620
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2026 MT 173N
SANDRA A. GEMAR,
Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
RICHARD K. GEMAR, JR.,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DR-25-51 Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Richard K. Gemar, Jr., Self-Represented, Odgen, Utah
For Appellee:
Sandra A. Gemar, Self-Represented, Libby, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 13, 2026
Decided: July 28, 2026
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and 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 Richard K. Gemar, Jr., (Richard) appeals from a Permanent Order of Protection
entered in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, on August 1, 2025,
ordering Richard to stay 1,500 feet away from the Petitioner, Sandra A. Gemar (Sandra),
and the parties’ minor child, A.N.G., except as permitted in a Final Parenting Plan entered
in the Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus County, on December 28, 2020. We affirm.
¶3 The parties have a lengthy and complex history of litigation, including two order of
protection cases and a dissolution case. The Final Parenting Plan grants Richard supervised
visitation for one hour every other week. Noting the existence of an earlier order of
protection between the parties, the Tenth Judicial District Court ordered that all
communication regarding visitation and transportation for A.N.G. must be conducted
through the person designated to supervise Richard’s parenting time. On March 24, 2025,
Sandra filed a Sworn Petition for Temporary Order of Protection with the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court (District Court). In her Sworn Petition for Temporary Order
Protection, Sandra alleged an extensive history of abuse, stalking, and harassment which
escalates with Richard’s increased substance abuse. More specifically, Sandra alleged that
Richard continues to stalk her, both in person and through social media, and that he moved
2 into a house just two doors down from where Sandra resides. Sandra recounted a recent
incident where Richard yelled at Sandra over the course of multiple days through the
doorway of his residence. Sandra recounted another incident in Idaho where Richard held
Sandra hostage in his truck. Sandra further alleged that Richard had destroyed most of her
possessions over the course of their volatile relationship. Finally, Sandra attached a plea
agreement entered in the City Court of Lewistown, Montana, on March 7, 2025, wherein
Richard pleaded guilty to one count of Violation of Order of Protection, First Offense, a
misdemeanor.
¶4 The parties appeared at a hearing before the District Court on June 11, 2025, where
they gave conflicting testimony regarding Richard’s parenting time with A.N.G. Richard
denied using drugs and stated that he is a professional confidential informer and that the
reason for his behavior was that there is gang activity going on against him. Richard
admitted to prior domestic violence against Sandra. At the hearing, the District Court
consolidated the parties’ dissolution matter, filed under Cause Number DR-25-51, with the
order of protection proceeding filed under Cause Number DR-25-45. The District Court
issued its August 1, 2025 Order of Protection, which orders the parties to follow the
2020 Final Parenting Plan regarding A.N.G., in addition to ordering Richard to stay at least
1,500 feet away from Sandra. The District Court later clarified in an August 29, 2025
Order that Richard’s visitation is not required to take place in Lewistown, but, rather, at a
location convenient to the parties. The court also clarified that a third party who it had
mistaken as Sandra’s attorney is not the designated person to coordinate Richard’s
3 supervised visitation time with A.N.G. The court further noted that all but one of Richard’s
pending motions relate to parenting and will be addressed in the dissolution proceeding.
¶5 On appeal, Richard provides a “transcript” that he transcribed himself of a
2019 hearing before a Wyoming court. On February 19, 2026, this Court denied Richard’s
request to waive the transcript fees under M. R. App. P. 5(5). Richard has not paid the
transcript fees or provided a copy of the relevant transcript prepared by a certified court
reporter. On February 25, 2026, Richard filed a Motion to Strike Sandra’s Response Brief,
alleging that she made material misrepresentations regarding the Final Parenting Plan.
Then, on March 10, 2026, Richard filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority requesting
that this Court decline to consider Sandra’s Response Brief because it was not filed within
the time allotted under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. We denied Richard’s
Motion to Strike and dismissed his Notice of Supplemental Authority on March 24, 2026.
¶6 Richard argues that the terms of the August 1, 2025 Permanent Order of Protection
do not permit him to exercise his supervised visitation time, contends that his due process
rights were violated by the District Court’s refusal to consider some of his motions, and
collaterally attacks the 2020 Final Parenting Plan. Sandra responds that Richard is using
the court system to continue harassing her and that any parental contact with Richard
beyond the Final Parenting Plan would be damaging to A.N.G.
¶7 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in
entering its August 1, 2025 Permanent Order of Protection. “We review a district court’s
decision to continue, amend, or make permanent an order of protection for abuse of
discretion.” Helt v. Guess, 2026 MT 117, ¶ 17, 428 Mont. 256, 590 P.3d 401. A district
4 court abuses its discretion when it acts without conscientious judgment, arbitrarily, or
exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice to a party. Helt, ¶ 17. We
review findings of fact for clear error. Helt, ¶ 17. “Even where there is conflicting
evidence, we will uphold findings of fact and conclusions supported by substantial credible
evidence.” Helt, ¶ 23. Our review of constitutional due process issues is plenary.
In re Marriage of Sampley, 2015 MT 121, ¶ 6, 379 Mont. 131, 347 P.3d 1281.
¶8 “The court may, on the basis of the respondent’s history of violence, the severity of
the offense at issue, and the evidence presented at the hearing, determine that to avoid
further injury or harm, the petitioner needs permanent protection.” Section 40-15-204(1),
MCA. Accordingly, a “court may order that the order of protection remain in effect
permanently.” Section 40-15-204(1), MCA. An order of protection may include a family
member who is a minor, § 40-15-204(4), MCA, however, the “statute requires
child-specific findings” and “does not allow a court to restrain parent-child contact based
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
07/28/2026
DA 25-0620 Case Number: DA 25-0620
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2026 MT 173N
SANDRA A. GEMAR,
Petitioner and Appellee,
v.
RICHARD K. GEMAR, JR.,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Lincoln, Cause No. DR-25-51 Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Richard K. Gemar, Jr., Self-Represented, Odgen, Utah
For Appellee:
Sandra A. Gemar, Self-Represented, Libby, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: May 13, 2026
Decided: July 28, 2026
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Laurie McKinnon delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and 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 Richard K. Gemar, Jr., (Richard) appeals from a Permanent Order of Protection
entered in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, on August 1, 2025,
ordering Richard to stay 1,500 feet away from the Petitioner, Sandra A. Gemar (Sandra),
and the parties’ minor child, A.N.G., except as permitted in a Final Parenting Plan entered
in the Tenth Judicial District Court, Fergus County, on December 28, 2020. We affirm.
¶3 The parties have a lengthy and complex history of litigation, including two order of
protection cases and a dissolution case. The Final Parenting Plan grants Richard supervised
visitation for one hour every other week. Noting the existence of an earlier order of
protection between the parties, the Tenth Judicial District Court ordered that all
communication regarding visitation and transportation for A.N.G. must be conducted
through the person designated to supervise Richard’s parenting time. On March 24, 2025,
Sandra filed a Sworn Petition for Temporary Order of Protection with the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court (District Court). In her Sworn Petition for Temporary Order
Protection, Sandra alleged an extensive history of abuse, stalking, and harassment which
escalates with Richard’s increased substance abuse. More specifically, Sandra alleged that
Richard continues to stalk her, both in person and through social media, and that he moved
2 into a house just two doors down from where Sandra resides. Sandra recounted a recent
incident where Richard yelled at Sandra over the course of multiple days through the
doorway of his residence. Sandra recounted another incident in Idaho where Richard held
Sandra hostage in his truck. Sandra further alleged that Richard had destroyed most of her
possessions over the course of their volatile relationship. Finally, Sandra attached a plea
agreement entered in the City Court of Lewistown, Montana, on March 7, 2025, wherein
Richard pleaded guilty to one count of Violation of Order of Protection, First Offense, a
misdemeanor.
¶4 The parties appeared at a hearing before the District Court on June 11, 2025, where
they gave conflicting testimony regarding Richard’s parenting time with A.N.G. Richard
denied using drugs and stated that he is a professional confidential informer and that the
reason for his behavior was that there is gang activity going on against him. Richard
admitted to prior domestic violence against Sandra. At the hearing, the District Court
consolidated the parties’ dissolution matter, filed under Cause Number DR-25-51, with the
order of protection proceeding filed under Cause Number DR-25-45. The District Court
issued its August 1, 2025 Order of Protection, which orders the parties to follow the
2020 Final Parenting Plan regarding A.N.G., in addition to ordering Richard to stay at least
1,500 feet away from Sandra. The District Court later clarified in an August 29, 2025
Order that Richard’s visitation is not required to take place in Lewistown, but, rather, at a
location convenient to the parties. The court also clarified that a third party who it had
mistaken as Sandra’s attorney is not the designated person to coordinate Richard’s
3 supervised visitation time with A.N.G. The court further noted that all but one of Richard’s
pending motions relate to parenting and will be addressed in the dissolution proceeding.
¶5 On appeal, Richard provides a “transcript” that he transcribed himself of a
2019 hearing before a Wyoming court. On February 19, 2026, this Court denied Richard’s
request to waive the transcript fees under M. R. App. P. 5(5). Richard has not paid the
transcript fees or provided a copy of the relevant transcript prepared by a certified court
reporter. On February 25, 2026, Richard filed a Motion to Strike Sandra’s Response Brief,
alleging that she made material misrepresentations regarding the Final Parenting Plan.
Then, on March 10, 2026, Richard filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority requesting
that this Court decline to consider Sandra’s Response Brief because it was not filed within
the time allotted under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. We denied Richard’s
Motion to Strike and dismissed his Notice of Supplemental Authority on March 24, 2026.
¶6 Richard argues that the terms of the August 1, 2025 Permanent Order of Protection
do not permit him to exercise his supervised visitation time, contends that his due process
rights were violated by the District Court’s refusal to consider some of his motions, and
collaterally attacks the 2020 Final Parenting Plan. Sandra responds that Richard is using
the court system to continue harassing her and that any parental contact with Richard
beyond the Final Parenting Plan would be damaging to A.N.G.
¶7 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion in
entering its August 1, 2025 Permanent Order of Protection. “We review a district court’s
decision to continue, amend, or make permanent an order of protection for abuse of
discretion.” Helt v. Guess, 2026 MT 117, ¶ 17, 428 Mont. 256, 590 P.3d 401. A district
4 court abuses its discretion when it acts without conscientious judgment, arbitrarily, or
exceeds the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice to a party. Helt, ¶ 17. We
review findings of fact for clear error. Helt, ¶ 17. “Even where there is conflicting
evidence, we will uphold findings of fact and conclusions supported by substantial credible
evidence.” Helt, ¶ 23. Our review of constitutional due process issues is plenary.
In re Marriage of Sampley, 2015 MT 121, ¶ 6, 379 Mont. 131, 347 P.3d 1281.
¶8 “The court may, on the basis of the respondent’s history of violence, the severity of
the offense at issue, and the evidence presented at the hearing, determine that to avoid
further injury or harm, the petitioner needs permanent protection.” Section 40-15-204(1),
MCA. Accordingly, a “court may order that the order of protection remain in effect
permanently.” Section 40-15-204(1), MCA. An order of protection may include a family
member who is a minor, § 40-15-204(4), MCA, however, the “statute requires
child-specific findings” and “does not allow a court to restrain parent-child contact based
only on generalized concerns about the respondent’s conduct toward the other parent.”
Helt, ¶ 26. Hence, a court may not supplant a child custody proceeding with an order of
protection proceeding. Helt, ¶ 32. Once a district court makes a child custody
determination, it retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over future custody
determinations absent circumstances not relevant here. Section 40-7-202, MCA.
¶9 Here, the District Court heard substantial credible evidence in support of its
conclusion that a permanent order of protection was necessary for the protection of Sandra
from Richard’s repeated harassment. Because Richard did not file a transcript of the
June 11, 2025 hearing, we are unable to consider anything other than the District Court’s
5 findings in its August 29, 2025 Order. The evidence before the court supports a finding of
a long-running cycle of domestic violence, including repeated instances of harassment of
Sandra by Richard. We agree that Richard’s efforts on appeal and before the District Court
appear designed to continue such harassment. Unlike the trial court in Helt, here, the
District Court did not seek to substitute a child custody determination with an order of
protection and explicitly ordered the parties to follow the 2020 Final Parenting Plan.
Likewise, the District Court properly referred Richard’s pending motions attacking the
findings in support of the 2020 Final Parenting Plan to the consolidated proceeding under
Cause Number DR-25-51, which retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child
custody determinations concerning A.N.G. We also note that district courts exercise
considerable discretion whether to set a hearing on a party’s motions. In re Marriage of
Sampley, ¶ 9.
¶10 Richard’s complaint that he cannot follow both the 2020 Final Parenting Plan and
the Permanent Order of Protection is misplaced. Richard is permitted limited, indirect
contact with Sandra solely through the designated parenting-time supervisor only to the
extent necessary to communicate logistics regarding his supervised parenting time with
A.N.G. He is not permitted to contact Sandra through a third party for any other purpose.
¶11 Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its discretion and did not violate
Richard’s due process rights when it issued the Permanent Order of Protection.
¶12 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the
6 Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review.
¶13 Affirmed.
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
We Concur:
/S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON