Marriage of Barlow
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
09/05/2017 DA 17-0107 Case Number: DA 17-0107 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2017 MT 220N IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: MICHAEL J. BARLOW, Petitioner and Appellee, v. SANDRA C. BARLOW, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, In and For the County of Park, Cause No. DR 09-13 Honorable Brenda R. Gilbert, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Kevin T. Sweeney, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana For Appellee: Karl Knuchel, Karl Knuchel, P.C., Livingston, Montana Submitted on Briefs: August 16, 2017 Decided: September 5, 2017 Filed: __________________________________________ Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath 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 Sandra Barlow appeals from the District Court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Parenting Order, and Order Regarding Child Support. We affirm. ¶3 The parties were married and have three children. The marriage was dissolved in 2010 and the District Court adopted a parenting plan from a settlement agreement entered by the parties. In December 2015 the Montana Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) considered and modified the child support by increasing the amount due from Michael. Both parties objected to the decision and sought judicial review. The District Court conducted a hearing in August and October 2016, and reviewed the parenting plan and the CSED support determination. The District Court’s order appealed from modified the parenting provisions and affirmed the CSED support determination. ¶4 There is a presumption in favor of a district court’s determination of child support, which will be overturned only where there has been an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Sullivan, 258 Mont. 531, 537, 853 P.2d 1194, 1198 (1997). Child support obligations are determined, as in this case, by applying the uniform child support guidelines adopted by the Montana Department of Health and Human Services. The 2 amount of support determined under the guidelines is presumed to be adequate and reasonable unless the district court finds by “clear and convincing evidence” that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate. Section 40-4-204(3)(a), MCA. ¶5 The District Court considered the parties’ evidence of Michael’s income and adopted the CSED support decision. Further, the District Court adequately considered and resolved the issue of credit given to Michael after he assumed responsibility for a $25,000 medical bill for one of the children. There was no clear and convincing evidence that the CSED decision should be modified, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion. ¶6 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, this case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of applicable standards of review. ¶7 Affirmed. /S/ MIKE McGRATH We Concur: /S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA /S/ BETH BAKER /S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR /S/ JIM RICE 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
