02/24/2026
DA 25-0223 Case Number: DA 25-0223
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2026 MT 38N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
ABIGAIL COOL,
Petitioner and Appellee,
and
MATTHEW EARL COOL,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 21-261 Honorable Mary Jane Knisely, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Penelope S. Strong, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
For Appellee:
Daniel Ball, Hendrickson Law Firm, P.C. Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 4, 2026
Decided: February 24, 2026
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Katherine Bidegaray 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 Matthew Cool (Matthew) appeals from the Final Parenting Plan entered by the
Thirteenth Judicial District Court following dissolution of his marriage to Abigail Cool
(Abigail). He argues the District Court clearly erred in characterizing his work schedule
as “ever-changing,” abused its discretion in weighing the best-interests factors under
§ 40-4-212, MCA, and improperly curtailed his parenting time with the parties’ two minor
sons.
¶3 A district court’s findings of fact underlying a parenting plan are reviewed for clear
error. In re Marriage of Crowley, 2014 MT 42, ¶ 44, 374 Mont. 48, 318 P.3d 1031. If the
findings are not clearly erroneous, we review the parenting determination for abuse of
discretion. In re Marriage of Epperson, 2005 MT 46, ¶ 17, 326 Mont. 142, 107 P.3d 1268.
A court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds
the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. Epperson, ¶ 17. Conclusions of
law are reviewed for correctness. Epperson, ¶ 16. The district court is required to consider
the best-interests factors set forth in § 40-4-212, MCA, but it is not required to make
specific findings on each statutory factor so long as the findings are sufficient to permit
appellate review and demonstrate that the decision was based on the children’s best
2 interests. In re Marriage of Woerner, 2014 MT 134, ¶ 15, 375 Mont. 153, 325 P.3d 1244;
In re Marriage of Keating, 212 Mont. 462, 465-67, 689 P.2d 249, 251-52 (1984).
¶4 The parties were married in 2009; separated in March 2021; stipulated to an interim
parenting plan arrangement at a December 9, 2021 hearing; and had their dissolution
hearing September 13-15, 2022. The District Court issued its Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, and a Final Parenting Plan on October 21, 2024. The record reflects
that, throughout most of the marriage, Abigail was the children’s primary caregiver.
Following the parties’ separation in 2021, the children continued to reside primarily with
her. During the pendency of the dissolution, the parties followed a stipulated interim
parenting arrangement pursuant to which Matthew exercised parenting time corresponding
largely with his days off from his rotating mine schedule at his employment with the
Stillwater Mine. That arrangement remained in place for an extended period prior to trial.
¶5 At trial, evidence established that the Stillwater Mine operates on a repeating
rotation, alternating day and night shifts with varying blocks of days on and days off.
Although the rotation pattern itself is consistent over time, the specific days of the week
and times of availability vary, and transitions between day and night shifts require
adjustment periods. The District Court found that this schedule did not provide a
sufficiently stable and predictable framework upon which to structure a primary residential
schedule given the children’s ages and established routines.
¶6 The court further found that Abigail had historically provided the children’s daily
care, schooling oversight, and medical coordination; that the children were adjusted to the
routines established in her home; and that continuity and stability of care favored
3 maintaining a residential structure similar to the parties’ stipulated interim arrangement.
The court expressly considered the statutory best-interests factors set forth in § 40-4-212,
MCA, and determined that the children’s immediate needs for stability and predictability
were best served by designating Abigail as primary residential parent while preserving
regular parenting time with Matthew. Although Matthew characterizes the final parenting
plan as limiting him to “48 days per year,” the schedule largely reflected the arrangement
the parties had been following since December 2021, including weekend blocks tied to his
scheduled days off and additional mid-week parenting time.
¶7 Matthew contends the court clearly erred in describing his schedule as
“ever-changing.” While Matthew’s work rotation follows a fixed mathematical cycle, the
District Court’s findings properly focused on the practical unpredictability of that schedule
from the perspective of the children’s daily routines. Substantial evidence supports the
court’s determination that a schedule shifting across weekdays and weekends, and
alternating between day and night shifts, does not provide the stable framework necessary
for children of these ages and developmental stages. The District Court expressly found
that, although the rotation itself repeats, Matthew did not present evidence of predictable
weekday or time-of-day availability upon which to structure a child-centered residential
schedule. On this record, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the District
Court erred. Crowley, ¶ 44.
¶8 Matthew further argues that the court improperly elevated continuity of care over
the Legislature’s policy favoring frequent and continuing contact with both parents because
it failed to determine that an equal or expanded parenting schedule would be detrimental
4 before adopting a plan that allowed Abigail to continue as the primary residential parent.1
Section 40-4-212, MCA, requires courts to determine parenting arrangements in
accordance with the best interests of the child. Montana law does not create a presumption
of equal residential time. Although § 40-4-212(1)(l), MCA, recognizes that frequent and
continuing contact with both parents is generally in a child’s best interests absent a finding
of detriment, it does not require a district court to adopt an equal or expanded residential
schedule simply because no finding of detriment has been made. Moreover, the Final
Parenting Plan fulfilled the statutory preference for frequent and continuing contact by
preserving Matthew’s weekend blocks and mid-week time; the court was not required to
find that an equal residential schedule was detrimental before concluding it was not in the
children’s best interests. The District Court did not find Matthew unfit or conclude that
contact with him was detrimental. Rather, it determined that equal or expanded residential
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
02/24/2026
DA 25-0223 Case Number: DA 25-0223
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2026 MT 38N
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
ABIGAIL COOL,
Petitioner and Appellee,
and
MATTHEW EARL COOL,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 21-261 Honorable Mary Jane Knisely, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Penelope S. Strong, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
For Appellee:
Daniel Ball, Hendrickson Law Firm, P.C. Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 4, 2026
Decided: February 24, 2026
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Katherine Bidegaray 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 Matthew Cool (Matthew) appeals from the Final Parenting Plan entered by the
Thirteenth Judicial District Court following dissolution of his marriage to Abigail Cool
(Abigail). He argues the District Court clearly erred in characterizing his work schedule
as “ever-changing,” abused its discretion in weighing the best-interests factors under
§ 40-4-212, MCA, and improperly curtailed his parenting time with the parties’ two minor
sons.
¶3 A district court’s findings of fact underlying a parenting plan are reviewed for clear
error. In re Marriage of Crowley, 2014 MT 42, ¶ 44, 374 Mont. 48, 318 P.3d 1031. If the
findings are not clearly erroneous, we review the parenting determination for abuse of
discretion. In re Marriage of Epperson, 2005 MT 46, ¶ 17, 326 Mont. 142, 107 P.3d 1268.
A court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds
the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. Epperson, ¶ 17. Conclusions of
law are reviewed for correctness. Epperson, ¶ 16. The district court is required to consider
the best-interests factors set forth in § 40-4-212, MCA, but it is not required to make
specific findings on each statutory factor so long as the findings are sufficient to permit
appellate review and demonstrate that the decision was based on the children’s best
2 interests. In re Marriage of Woerner, 2014 MT 134, ¶ 15, 375 Mont. 153, 325 P.3d 1244;
In re Marriage of Keating, 212 Mont. 462, 465-67, 689 P.2d 249, 251-52 (1984).
¶4 The parties were married in 2009; separated in March 2021; stipulated to an interim
parenting plan arrangement at a December 9, 2021 hearing; and had their dissolution
hearing September 13-15, 2022. The District Court issued its Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, and a Final Parenting Plan on October 21, 2024. The record reflects
that, throughout most of the marriage, Abigail was the children’s primary caregiver.
Following the parties’ separation in 2021, the children continued to reside primarily with
her. During the pendency of the dissolution, the parties followed a stipulated interim
parenting arrangement pursuant to which Matthew exercised parenting time corresponding
largely with his days off from his rotating mine schedule at his employment with the
Stillwater Mine. That arrangement remained in place for an extended period prior to trial.
¶5 At trial, evidence established that the Stillwater Mine operates on a repeating
rotation, alternating day and night shifts with varying blocks of days on and days off.
Although the rotation pattern itself is consistent over time, the specific days of the week
and times of availability vary, and transitions between day and night shifts require
adjustment periods. The District Court found that this schedule did not provide a
sufficiently stable and predictable framework upon which to structure a primary residential
schedule given the children’s ages and established routines.
¶6 The court further found that Abigail had historically provided the children’s daily
care, schooling oversight, and medical coordination; that the children were adjusted to the
routines established in her home; and that continuity and stability of care favored
3 maintaining a residential structure similar to the parties’ stipulated interim arrangement.
The court expressly considered the statutory best-interests factors set forth in § 40-4-212,
MCA, and determined that the children’s immediate needs for stability and predictability
were best served by designating Abigail as primary residential parent while preserving
regular parenting time with Matthew. Although Matthew characterizes the final parenting
plan as limiting him to “48 days per year,” the schedule largely reflected the arrangement
the parties had been following since December 2021, including weekend blocks tied to his
scheduled days off and additional mid-week parenting time.
¶7 Matthew contends the court clearly erred in describing his schedule as
“ever-changing.” While Matthew’s work rotation follows a fixed mathematical cycle, the
District Court’s findings properly focused on the practical unpredictability of that schedule
from the perspective of the children’s daily routines. Substantial evidence supports the
court’s determination that a schedule shifting across weekdays and weekends, and
alternating between day and night shifts, does not provide the stable framework necessary
for children of these ages and developmental stages. The District Court expressly found
that, although the rotation itself repeats, Matthew did not present evidence of predictable
weekday or time-of-day availability upon which to structure a child-centered residential
schedule. On this record, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the District
Court erred. Crowley, ¶ 44.
¶8 Matthew further argues that the court improperly elevated continuity of care over
the Legislature’s policy favoring frequent and continuing contact with both parents because
it failed to determine that an equal or expanded parenting schedule would be detrimental
4 before adopting a plan that allowed Abigail to continue as the primary residential parent.1
Section 40-4-212, MCA, requires courts to determine parenting arrangements in
accordance with the best interests of the child. Montana law does not create a presumption
of equal residential time. Although § 40-4-212(1)(l), MCA, recognizes that frequent and
continuing contact with both parents is generally in a child’s best interests absent a finding
of detriment, it does not require a district court to adopt an equal or expanded residential
schedule simply because no finding of detriment has been made. Moreover, the Final
Parenting Plan fulfilled the statutory preference for frequent and continuing contact by
preserving Matthew’s weekend blocks and mid-week time; the court was not required to
find that an equal residential schedule was detrimental before concluding it was not in the
children’s best interests. The District Court did not find Matthew unfit or conclude that
contact with him was detrimental. Rather, it determined that equal or expanded residential
time was not presently in the children’s best interests given their ages, established routines,
and Matthew’s work schedule. That determination falls within the court’s broad discretion
in parenting matters.
¶9 The court’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review and demonstrate that
the decision was grounded in the statutory framework. See Woerner, ¶ 15. Although
Matthew urges this Court to reweigh the evidence and adopt a different allocation of
parenting time, our role is limited. Where substantial evidence supports the findings and
1 Section 40-4-212(1)(l), MCA, includes as one of the best interest factors: “whether the child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents, which is considered to be in the child’s best interests unless the court determines, after a hearing, that contact with a parent would be detrimental to the child’s best interests.” 5 the court has applied the correct legal standards, we will not substitute our judgment for
that of the trial court.
¶10 The District Court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. Its parenting
determination was not an abuse of discretion. To the extent Matthew contends
circumstances may warrant a different schedule in the future, § 40-4-219, MCA, provides
a mechanism for modification upon a showing of changed circumstances affecting the
children’s best interests.
¶11 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents
no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent
or modify existing precedent.
¶12 Affirmed.
/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY
We Concur:
/S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ JIM RICE