05/05/2026
DA 25-0672 Case Number: DA 25-0672
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2026 MT 99N
IN RE THE PARENTING OF V.W.,
A Minor Child,
STEPHANIE ANN LAMARR,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
MARK STACY WHITNEY,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DR-2020-290A Honorable Peter B. Ohman, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Stephanie A. LaMarr, Self-Represented, Bozeman, Montana
For Appellee:
Madison Cisiewski, Luebeck, Hammar, McCarty & Goldwarg, PLLC, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 25, 2026
Decided: May 5, 2026
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Ingrid Gustafson 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 Appellant, Stephanie A. LaMarr (LaMarr), appeals from orders of the Eighteenth
Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying her motion to modify the parenting plan
and denying additional subsequent motions. We affirm.
¶3 LaMarr and Appellee, Mark Whitney (Whitney), have one child together, V.W.,
who is approximately 12 years old. They filed their Stipulated Parenting Plan (SPP) on
March 3, 2019, which the District Court adopted on the same day. Pursuant to the SPP,
LaMarr has primary custody of V.W. with Whitney enjoying custody during spring and
summer breaks from school.
¶4 On June 17, 2024, LaMarr, pro se, filed a motion to amend the parenting plan, along
with a supporting affidavit seeking to amend the SPP. In these filings, she asserted
Whitney’s parenting time should be decreased to one month per year and that she should
be granted the exclusive right to make medical decisions for V.W. In her affidavit she
asserts V.W. has spent less time with Whitney than that provided in the SPP and that
Whitney exposed V.W. to porn-like visuals on his television, terrified V.W. due to
multitasking while driving, and that Whitney is not a trained medical professional so she
should not have to convince him as to procedures or medical services she believes V.W.
2 should have or needs. In her accompanying proposed amended parenting plan, she
proposes that she will have primary custody, with Whitney having a total of 1 month of
parenting time per year “as determined by [V.W.]’s wants,” and further proposes the parent
in possession will transport V.W. while not using electronic devices, mother will retain
V.W.’s passport and claim her for tax purposes, written permission to be required for V.W.
to leave Montana, V.W. shall not be exposed to pornography, and that Whitney should pay
LaMarr over $11,000 per month in child support. Subsequent to this motion, LaMarr filed
various other motions including a motion for discovery, a motion to require use of Our
Family Wizard, motions for Whitney to pay mediation costs and LaMarr’s legal retainer,
and a motion for enforcement of an order/contempt of court asserting a failure of Whitney
to pay child support for March 2025.
¶5 In response, Whitney asserted LaMarr’s motion to amend the SPP should be denied
as LaMarr did not make the required statutory showing of a change in circumstance of the
child. Whitney asserted LaMarr’s allegations were speculative and unfounded and that she
failed to provide any credible, significant evidence that amending the parenting plan as she
proposed would be in V.W.’s best interests. He asserted LaMarr is not entitled to discovery
of financial information regarding his business as LaMarr made no specific request to either
the District Court or the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) to modify child support.
He asserted her motion seeking to require use of Our Family Wizard to be another attempt
at amending the parenting plan without cause. Finally, he asserted LaMarr established no
basis for requiring him to pay for mediation costs or pay LaMarr’s legal fees, even if she
were not representing herself pro se.
3 ¶6 The District Court reviewed LaMarr’s motion for amendment and supporting
affidavit, as well as her other subsequent motions, and denied them without first holding
an evidentiary hearing. The District Court determined LaMarr’s filings failed to make the
required statutory showing of a change in the circumstances of the parties’ child which
would support the amendments she proposed. The District Court noted that in LaMarr’s
motion for enforcement and contempt, CSSD confirmed Whitney’s March child support
payment was deposited into LaMarr’s account on April 11, 2025, such that contempt was
not warranted. The court determined the remaining matters “do not rise to a level justifying
a contempt proceeding” but rather were “disagreements and miscommunications that exist
in many relationships and particularly with parties who do not get along but share a child
together.”
¶7 We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to amend the parenting plan for an
abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Brown, 2016 MT 299, ¶ 11, 385 Mont. 369, 384
P.3d 476. We also apply the abuse of discretion standard—when a court acts without
conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice—
to a district court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing. In re Marriage of Brown,
¶ 11.
¶8 Pursuant to § 40-4-219(1), MCA, a district court may amend a parenting plan “if it
finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior plan or that were unknown to
the court at the time of entry of the prior plan, that a change has occurred in the
circumstances of the child and that the amendment is necessary to serve the best interest of
the child.”
4 A parent who seeks to amend a parenting plan must “submit, together with the moving papers, an affidavit setting forth facts supporting the requested plan or amendment.” Section 40-4-220(1), MCA. It is not enough to simply file the motion without specifying how the parenting plan should be amended; the requested amendment must be included with the moving papers. Section 40-4-219(7), MCA. Taken together, these statutes impose a burden on the parent seeking an amendment to show, through affidavits submitted with the motion to amend, facts that were unknown to the court when the parenting plan was adopted or that have since arisen and that necessitate amendment of the parenting plan.
In re Marriage of Brown, ¶ 19.
¶9 Upon our review of the record, we agree with the District Court. LaMarr’s motion
to amend the SPP and supporting affidavit did not articulate a significant change in
circumstances of V.W. or articulate how, if there were a change in V.W.’s circumstances,
the proposed changes are necessary to serve her best interests as required by §§ 40-4-219
and -220, MCA. The allegations made by LaMarr as to Whitney’s driving behaviors or
exhibition of porn-like material to V.W. were unsubstantiated. There was no showing of
any pending child welfare investigation or substantiation of cited driving infractions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
05/05/2026
DA 25-0672 Case Number: DA 25-0672
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2026 MT 99N
IN RE THE PARENTING OF V.W.,
A Minor Child,
STEPHANIE ANN LAMARR,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
MARK STACY WHITNEY,
Respondent and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Gallatin, Cause No. DR-2020-290A Honorable Peter B. Ohman, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Stephanie A. LaMarr, Self-Represented, Bozeman, Montana
For Appellee:
Madison Cisiewski, Luebeck, Hammar, McCarty & Goldwarg, PLLC, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 25, 2026
Decided: May 5, 2026
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Ingrid Gustafson 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 Appellant, Stephanie A. LaMarr (LaMarr), appeals from orders of the Eighteenth
Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying her motion to modify the parenting plan
and denying additional subsequent motions. We affirm.
¶3 LaMarr and Appellee, Mark Whitney (Whitney), have one child together, V.W.,
who is approximately 12 years old. They filed their Stipulated Parenting Plan (SPP) on
March 3, 2019, which the District Court adopted on the same day. Pursuant to the SPP,
LaMarr has primary custody of V.W. with Whitney enjoying custody during spring and
summer breaks from school.
¶4 On June 17, 2024, LaMarr, pro se, filed a motion to amend the parenting plan, along
with a supporting affidavit seeking to amend the SPP. In these filings, she asserted
Whitney’s parenting time should be decreased to one month per year and that she should
be granted the exclusive right to make medical decisions for V.W. In her affidavit she
asserts V.W. has spent less time with Whitney than that provided in the SPP and that
Whitney exposed V.W. to porn-like visuals on his television, terrified V.W. due to
multitasking while driving, and that Whitney is not a trained medical professional so she
should not have to convince him as to procedures or medical services she believes V.W.
2 should have or needs. In her accompanying proposed amended parenting plan, she
proposes that she will have primary custody, with Whitney having a total of 1 month of
parenting time per year “as determined by [V.W.]’s wants,” and further proposes the parent
in possession will transport V.W. while not using electronic devices, mother will retain
V.W.’s passport and claim her for tax purposes, written permission to be required for V.W.
to leave Montana, V.W. shall not be exposed to pornography, and that Whitney should pay
LaMarr over $11,000 per month in child support. Subsequent to this motion, LaMarr filed
various other motions including a motion for discovery, a motion to require use of Our
Family Wizard, motions for Whitney to pay mediation costs and LaMarr’s legal retainer,
and a motion for enforcement of an order/contempt of court asserting a failure of Whitney
to pay child support for March 2025.
¶5 In response, Whitney asserted LaMarr’s motion to amend the SPP should be denied
as LaMarr did not make the required statutory showing of a change in circumstance of the
child. Whitney asserted LaMarr’s allegations were speculative and unfounded and that she
failed to provide any credible, significant evidence that amending the parenting plan as she
proposed would be in V.W.’s best interests. He asserted LaMarr is not entitled to discovery
of financial information regarding his business as LaMarr made no specific request to either
the District Court or the Child Support Services Division (CSSD) to modify child support.
He asserted her motion seeking to require use of Our Family Wizard to be another attempt
at amending the parenting plan without cause. Finally, he asserted LaMarr established no
basis for requiring him to pay for mediation costs or pay LaMarr’s legal fees, even if she
were not representing herself pro se.
3 ¶6 The District Court reviewed LaMarr’s motion for amendment and supporting
affidavit, as well as her other subsequent motions, and denied them without first holding
an evidentiary hearing. The District Court determined LaMarr’s filings failed to make the
required statutory showing of a change in the circumstances of the parties’ child which
would support the amendments she proposed. The District Court noted that in LaMarr’s
motion for enforcement and contempt, CSSD confirmed Whitney’s March child support
payment was deposited into LaMarr’s account on April 11, 2025, such that contempt was
not warranted. The court determined the remaining matters “do not rise to a level justifying
a contempt proceeding” but rather were “disagreements and miscommunications that exist
in many relationships and particularly with parties who do not get along but share a child
together.”
¶7 We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to amend the parenting plan for an
abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Brown, 2016 MT 299, ¶ 11, 385 Mont. 369, 384
P.3d 476. We also apply the abuse of discretion standard—when a court acts without
conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice—
to a district court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing. In re Marriage of Brown,
¶ 11.
¶8 Pursuant to § 40-4-219(1), MCA, a district court may amend a parenting plan “if it
finds, upon the basis of facts that have arisen since the prior plan or that were unknown to
the court at the time of entry of the prior plan, that a change has occurred in the
circumstances of the child and that the amendment is necessary to serve the best interest of
the child.”
4 A parent who seeks to amend a parenting plan must “submit, together with the moving papers, an affidavit setting forth facts supporting the requested plan or amendment.” Section 40-4-220(1), MCA. It is not enough to simply file the motion without specifying how the parenting plan should be amended; the requested amendment must be included with the moving papers. Section 40-4-219(7), MCA. Taken together, these statutes impose a burden on the parent seeking an amendment to show, through affidavits submitted with the motion to amend, facts that were unknown to the court when the parenting plan was adopted or that have since arisen and that necessitate amendment of the parenting plan.
In re Marriage of Brown, ¶ 19.
¶9 Upon our review of the record, we agree with the District Court. LaMarr’s motion
to amend the SPP and supporting affidavit did not articulate a significant change in
circumstances of V.W. or articulate how, if there were a change in V.W.’s circumstances,
the proposed changes are necessary to serve her best interests as required by §§ 40-4-219
and -220, MCA. The allegations made by LaMarr as to Whitney’s driving behaviors or
exhibition of porn-like material to V.W. were unsubstantiated. There was no showing of
any pending child welfare investigation or substantiation of cited driving infractions.
LaMarr did not articulate any change in V.W.’s circumstances necessitating the need for
alternate communication services, nor did she show how use of Our Family Wizard would
be necessary to serve V.W.’s best interests if such a need had developed. Without more, it
was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to deny amendment of the parenting
plan without first holding an evidentiary hearing. Further, LaMarr provided no support for
requiring Whitney to pay all of the mediation fees associated with her motion to amend the
parenting plan nor did she provide support for requiring Whitney to pay for legal fees she
did not incur as she represented herself pro se. Finally, the parties’ child support is
5 administered through CSSD. Although LaMarr asserted on her supporting affidavit that
she desired Whitney to pay her child support in excess of $11,000 per month, she did not
file a motion for modification of child support in the District Court and, as such, the District
Court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for discovery relating to Whitney’s
financial information. Should she desire, LaMarr is not foreclosed from seeking
modification of child support through CSSD and through that process may be entitled to
obtain discovery of Whitney’s current financial situation.
¶10 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.
¶11 Affirmed.
/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON
We Concur:
/S/ CORY J. SWANSON /S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ JIM RICE