09/23/2025
DA 25-0156 Case Number: DA 25-0156
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2025 MT 216N
IN RE THE PARENTING OF:
J.E.B. and B.L.B.,
Minor Children,
JESSICA L. BROOKS,
Petitioner and Appellee,
and
MATTHEW J. BROOKS,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Sanders, Cause No. DR-22-40 Honorable Molly Owen, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Matthew J. Brooks, Self-Represented, Plains, Montana
For Appellee:
Emily A. Lucas, Brandi R. Ries, Ries Law Group, P.C., Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 16, 2025
Decided: September 23, 2025
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Jim Rice 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 J. Brooks (Matthew) appeals from the orders of the Twentieth Judicial
District Court adopting an amended parenting plan proposed by Appellee Jessica L. Brooks
(Jessica) that imposed upon Matthew the requirement of supervised visitation with the
parties’ children, and contained a plan that would allow unsupervised parenting time only
upon Matthew’s completion of several program requirements.
¶3 Matthew was represented by counsel before the District Court, but is
self-represented on appeal. There have been numerous filings by the parties regarding the
briefing in the case. Ultimately, the Court denied Jessica’s motion to dismiss the appeal
and permitted Matthew to file an amended opening brief, which he filed on May 16, 2025.
In her answer brief, Jessica argues that the appeal, as now framed by Matthew’s amended
opening brief, is untimely, because he appears to be challenging the District Court’s order
entered on February 6, 2024, but his notice of appeal was not filed until February 21, 2025,
over a year later. In his reply brief, Matthew states he is also contesting the District Court’s
order of February 12, 2025, which denied his motion for revision of the parenting plan and
that, in any event, he asks that the Court grant an out-of-time appeal if his appeal is deemed
to be untimely. Matthew’s notice of appeal did reference the February 12, 2025 order, and
2 was filed seven days after the order was entered. We are mindful that M. R. App. P. 4(3)(b)
provides that “[a]n appeal from a judgment draws into question all previous orders and
rulings excepted or objected to which led up to and resulted in the judgment,” and note that
Matthew contested the parenting issue before the District Court throughout the proceeding.
Given the collective content of all his filings, we deem his appeal to have been timely filed.
¶4 In August 2023, the parties’ marriage was dissolved, and the District Court adopted
the parties’ stipulated parenting plan for their two minor children, J.E.B. and B.L.B. In
November 2023, Jessica sought an ex parte order immediately adopting her proposed
amended parenting plan and setting a hearing for Matthew to appear and show cause why
the amended parenting plan should not remain in place as the final parenting plan. Jessica’s
motion was based upon allegations that Matthew had engaged in acts of violence toward
Erica, a subsequent partner of Matthew’s, which had resulted in Matthew being charged
with Partner Family Member Assault (PFMA). There were further allegations of Matthew
consuming alcohol during times of parenting the children and their observation of his
violent behaviors. The District Court granted the request, entering the ex parte order and
adopting Jessica’s proposed amended parenting plan as the interim parenting plan.
¶5 In January 2024, the show cause hearing was conducted and witnesses testified,
including Erica, following which the District Court entered its Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court noted that the original Final Parenting
Plan prohibited the parents from permitting the children to be subjected to 1) persons using
alcohol or illegal drugs, or 2) use of profane language or domestic violence. Jessica
testified, as found by the District Court, about incidents of domestic violence during her
3 marriage to Matthew, her belief that Matthew’s violence was linked to her, and her hope
that the presence of Matthew’s new partner after the dissolution of their marriage would
be a “protective factor for the children when being parented by” Matthew. The District
Court found, however, that since entry of the original Final Parenting Plan, Matthew had
perpetrated numerous instances of physical violence on Erica, including when her children
and the parties’ children (J.E.B. and B.L.B.) were present, and had used alcohol in the
presence of the children despite the prohibition against doing so within the Final Parenting
Plan. The District Court delineated the numerous violent episodes in detail and noted that
they were undisputed. It further found that:
Despite having engaged in programs for batterers since entry of the Order to Show Cause, [Matthew] describes his behavior as being “out of control” and things “getting out of hand.” [Matthew’s] description of these violent incidents is deficient. [Matthew] lacks true understanding of what causes him to abuse his partners and until he can truly understand his battering behavior, the parties’ children will continue to be at risk of exposure to domestic violence while in [Matthew’s] care.
¶6 Addressing the statutory considerations of the children’s best interest, the District
Court found that Matthew’s mental health was a concern, and that it was in the children’s
best interest that he obtain mental health care and participate in individual counselling,
noting that he had pointed a firearm at the head of his former partner in the preceding nine
months. It found that Matthew struggled with chemical abuse or chemical dependency,
and that it was in the children’s best interest that he submit to a chemical dependency
evaluation and comply with all recommendations of the evaluation, which it also ordered.
It adopted the amended parenting plan as the new final plan, which required supervised
visitation by Matthew until such time as he completed a batterer’s program, parenting
4 classes, chemical dependency assessment and recommendations, individual therapy, and
resolution of the pending criminal case against him. Matthew challenges these
requirements on appeal.
¶7 We review a district court’s factual findings pertaining to a parenting plan to
determine if they are clearly erroneous. Boeshans v. Boeshans, 2025 MT 187, ¶ 16,
423 Mont. 450, 573 P.3d 1226. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if not supported by
substantial evidence, the lower court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or we are
firmly convinced a mistake was made.” Boeshans, ¶ 17 (citation omitted). We review a
district court’s orders on parenting for an abuse of discretion. Boeshans, ¶ 16.
¶8 Matthew argues that prohibitions in the original Final Parenting Plan were only to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
09/23/2025
DA 25-0156 Case Number: DA 25-0156
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2025 MT 216N
IN RE THE PARENTING OF:
J.E.B. and B.L.B.,
Minor Children,
JESSICA L. BROOKS,
Petitioner and Appellee,
and
MATTHEW J. BROOKS,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, In and For the County of Sanders, Cause No. DR-22-40 Honorable Molly Owen, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Matthew J. Brooks, Self-Represented, Plains, Montana
For Appellee:
Emily A. Lucas, Brandi R. Ries, Ries Law Group, P.C., Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 16, 2025
Decided: September 23, 2025
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Jim Rice 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 J. Brooks (Matthew) appeals from the orders of the Twentieth Judicial
District Court adopting an amended parenting plan proposed by Appellee Jessica L. Brooks
(Jessica) that imposed upon Matthew the requirement of supervised visitation with the
parties’ children, and contained a plan that would allow unsupervised parenting time only
upon Matthew’s completion of several program requirements.
¶3 Matthew was represented by counsel before the District Court, but is
self-represented on appeal. There have been numerous filings by the parties regarding the
briefing in the case. Ultimately, the Court denied Jessica’s motion to dismiss the appeal
and permitted Matthew to file an amended opening brief, which he filed on May 16, 2025.
In her answer brief, Jessica argues that the appeal, as now framed by Matthew’s amended
opening brief, is untimely, because he appears to be challenging the District Court’s order
entered on February 6, 2024, but his notice of appeal was not filed until February 21, 2025,
over a year later. In his reply brief, Matthew states he is also contesting the District Court’s
order of February 12, 2025, which denied his motion for revision of the parenting plan and
that, in any event, he asks that the Court grant an out-of-time appeal if his appeal is deemed
to be untimely. Matthew’s notice of appeal did reference the February 12, 2025 order, and
2 was filed seven days after the order was entered. We are mindful that M. R. App. P. 4(3)(b)
provides that “[a]n appeal from a judgment draws into question all previous orders and
rulings excepted or objected to which led up to and resulted in the judgment,” and note that
Matthew contested the parenting issue before the District Court throughout the proceeding.
Given the collective content of all his filings, we deem his appeal to have been timely filed.
¶4 In August 2023, the parties’ marriage was dissolved, and the District Court adopted
the parties’ stipulated parenting plan for their two minor children, J.E.B. and B.L.B. In
November 2023, Jessica sought an ex parte order immediately adopting her proposed
amended parenting plan and setting a hearing for Matthew to appear and show cause why
the amended parenting plan should not remain in place as the final parenting plan. Jessica’s
motion was based upon allegations that Matthew had engaged in acts of violence toward
Erica, a subsequent partner of Matthew’s, which had resulted in Matthew being charged
with Partner Family Member Assault (PFMA). There were further allegations of Matthew
consuming alcohol during times of parenting the children and their observation of his
violent behaviors. The District Court granted the request, entering the ex parte order and
adopting Jessica’s proposed amended parenting plan as the interim parenting plan.
¶5 In January 2024, the show cause hearing was conducted and witnesses testified,
including Erica, following which the District Court entered its Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order. The District Court noted that the original Final Parenting
Plan prohibited the parents from permitting the children to be subjected to 1) persons using
alcohol or illegal drugs, or 2) use of profane language or domestic violence. Jessica
testified, as found by the District Court, about incidents of domestic violence during her
3 marriage to Matthew, her belief that Matthew’s violence was linked to her, and her hope
that the presence of Matthew’s new partner after the dissolution of their marriage would
be a “protective factor for the children when being parented by” Matthew. The District
Court found, however, that since entry of the original Final Parenting Plan, Matthew had
perpetrated numerous instances of physical violence on Erica, including when her children
and the parties’ children (J.E.B. and B.L.B.) were present, and had used alcohol in the
presence of the children despite the prohibition against doing so within the Final Parenting
Plan. The District Court delineated the numerous violent episodes in detail and noted that
they were undisputed. It further found that:
Despite having engaged in programs for batterers since entry of the Order to Show Cause, [Matthew] describes his behavior as being “out of control” and things “getting out of hand.” [Matthew’s] description of these violent incidents is deficient. [Matthew] lacks true understanding of what causes him to abuse his partners and until he can truly understand his battering behavior, the parties’ children will continue to be at risk of exposure to domestic violence while in [Matthew’s] care.
¶6 Addressing the statutory considerations of the children’s best interest, the District
Court found that Matthew’s mental health was a concern, and that it was in the children’s
best interest that he obtain mental health care and participate in individual counselling,
noting that he had pointed a firearm at the head of his former partner in the preceding nine
months. It found that Matthew struggled with chemical abuse or chemical dependency,
and that it was in the children’s best interest that he submit to a chemical dependency
evaluation and comply with all recommendations of the evaluation, which it also ordered.
It adopted the amended parenting plan as the new final plan, which required supervised
visitation by Matthew until such time as he completed a batterer’s program, parenting
4 classes, chemical dependency assessment and recommendations, individual therapy, and
resolution of the pending criminal case against him. Matthew challenges these
requirements on appeal.
¶7 We review a district court’s factual findings pertaining to a parenting plan to
determine if they are clearly erroneous. Boeshans v. Boeshans, 2025 MT 187, ¶ 16,
423 Mont. 450, 573 P.3d 1226. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if not supported by
substantial evidence, the lower court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or we are
firmly convinced a mistake was made.” Boeshans, ¶ 17 (citation omitted). We review a
district court’s orders on parenting for an abuse of discretion. Boeshans, ¶ 16.
¶8 Matthew argues that prohibitions in the original Final Parenting Plan were only to
be applied “directly prior to or during a visit with the children,” that there was no evidence
of alcohol use during the alleged incident with Erica that led to the PFMA charge, and that
this incident occurred outside of parenting time. However, even if Matthew is correct in
this regard, the District Court found there were other incidents, described as undisputed, in
which Matthew violated the prohibition by drinking and committing violent acts in the
presence of the children. Matthew also contends that the Amended Final Plan violates the
best interest of the children because supervised visitation “disrupts J.E.B. and B.L.B.’s
bond with me and their sense of security.” However, the District Court found, to the
contrary, that “[s]ince residing primarily with [Jessica] and having only supervised
parenting time with [Matthew], the minor children are doing well. The parties’ youngest
child is exhibiting less aggressive behavior than he was when he was having unsupervised
parenting time with [Matthew].” Matthew argues that he has already “demonstrated
5 rehabilitation” through the programs in which he has participated. However, again, the
District Court found, at the time of the entry of the order, that Matthew, despite some initial
therapy, had not yet successfully demonstrated an understanding of the causes of his
abusive behavior, and continued to present a risk of domestic violence to the children until
he satisfactorily completes the programs required by the amended plan.
¶9 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
Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of
applicable standards of review. The District Court’s findings of fact were not clearly
erroneous, and its order entering the Amended Parenting Plan was not an abuse of
discretion.1
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We Concur:
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ KATHERINE M BIDEGARAY /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
1 On July 16, 2025, after this case was sent to the Court and classified, Matthew filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply Brief Addressing New Developments and for Expedited Consideration. Jessica filed a response opposing the motion. Generally, this Court does not consider additional pleadings after the conclusion of briefing and submission to the Court, and the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for such motions. Therefore, we have limited our consideration to the briefs Matthew submitted in accordance with the rules. 6