Boeshans v. Boeshans: Conditioning Parenting Rights on Court-Ordered Evaluations and Clarifying Ownership of Professional Limited Liability Companies

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Montana, in In re the Marriage of Boeshans, 2025 MT 187, resolved a multi-faceted dissolution dispute that raised three principal issues: compliance with mandatory financial disclosures, the propriety of conditioning a parent’s contact with a minor child on mental-health and chemical-dependency evaluations, and the legality and equity of awarding a professional limited liability company (PLLC) to a non-licensed spouse. Justice Katherine Bidegaray authored the unanimous decision, affirming the Yellowstone County District Court on all points.

The case involved Heidi and Joseph Boeshans, married in 2020, parents of a two-year-old, and joint purchasers of “Boesh Engineering” (formally J.R. Boeshans Engineering, PLLC). Joseph appealed the trial court’s findings that he failed to disclose financial information, that his parenting time could be delayed until he completed professional evaluations, and that sole ownership of the engineering firm could be vested in Heidi, who is not a licensed engineer.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court answered “yes” to all three certified questions:

Financial disclosures: Substantial evidence supported the finding that Joseph failed to make full and timely disclosures required by § 40-4-253, MCA.
Parenting time: Conditioning Joseph’s parenting on completion of mental-health and chemical-dependency evaluations, with a graduated schedule thereafter, was within the court’s discretion and in the best interests of the child under § 40-4-212, MCA.
Distribution of the business: Awarding Heidi sole ownership of the PLLC—despite her not being a professional engineer—did not contravene Montana’s Limited Liability Company Act and was equitable under § 40-4-202, MCA.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In re Marriage of Tummarello, 2012 MT 18 – standard for reviewing factual findings in dissolution cases.
In re Marriage of Thorner, 2008 MT 270 – abuse-of-discretion framework for parenting plans.
Bessette v. Bessette, 2019 MT 35 – definition of abuse of discretion.
Cox v. Magers, 2018 MT 21 – intolerance of discovery abuse.
Arneson-Nelson v. Nelson, 2001 MT 242 – authority to suspend or restrict visitation for child’s welfare.
Woerner v. Woerner, 2014 MT 134; In re Kesler, 2018 MT 231 – deference to trial courts on parenting determinations.
Hutchins v. Hutchins, 2018 MT 275; Richards v. Trussler, 2015 MT 314 – equitable distribution principles.

These cases collectively reinforce three themes: (1) strict adherence to statutory disclosure duties, (2) broad judicial discretion to protect children’s welfare through customized parenting orders, and (3) pragmatic, fact-specific property divisions.

Legal Reasoning

Financial Disclosure Violations
The statute (§ 40-4-253, MCA) sets a hard 45-day pre-trial deadline for final financial declarations. Joseph’s mid-trial filing, his undisclosed $30,000 raise, and concealed $46,000 credit-card debt justified the trial court’s sanctions and credibility findings. The Supreme Court emphasized that pro se status confers no immunity from rules (Greenup principle).
Conditioned Parenting Plan
The Court meticulously applied the § 40-4-212 best-interest factors, citing alcohol use, erratic behavior, and anger issues. Relying on Arneson-Nelson, it confirmed that a court may restrict or delay visitation when contact is detrimental, provided clear benchmarks (here: completion of evaluations and breathalyzer compliance) are supplied.
Ownership of a Professional Limited Liability Company
Joseph argued that the Professional Corporation Act barred Heidi’s ownership. The Court noted the entity was a PLLC governed by Title 35, chapter 8. Those statutes only require that one-half of the managers and member(s) rendering services be licensed. A non-licensed spouse may own the equity so long as licensed professionals perform the regulated work. The Court also pointed to Heidi’s plan to employ a professional engineer, satisfying § 35-8-1303, MCA. Equitably, allocating the PLLC to Heidi protected her premarital home—pledged as collateral—and prevented foreseeable default.

Impact of the Decision

Parenting Litigation: Trial courts now have explicit high-court confirmation that they may defer the start of a parent’s time with a child until objective evaluations are completed, without violating constitutional parental rights, so long as criteria and a pathway to reunification are articulated.
Discovery in Dissolutions: The judgment underscores that eleventh-hour or partial disclosures expose parties to sanctions and credibility demerits; “pro se leeway” will not excuse non-compliance.
Business-Asset Division: The Court clarified that professional-services entities organized as PLLCs may be transferred to a non-licensed spouse in a divorce, dispelling confusion between the Professional Corporation Act and the Limited Liability Company Act.
Future Entity Structuring: Lawyers handling marital estates containing PLLCs must confirm the client’s compliance route—e.g., hiring licensed managers—rather than assume a per se bar to ownership transfers.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Best-Interest Factors (§ 40-4-212): A statutory checklist guiding courts to decide what arrangement most benefits the child (health, safety, stability, etc.).
Conditional Parenting Time: The court can set prerequisites—therapy, testing, sobriety—before a parent exercises visitation when evidence suggests risk.
Professional Limited Liability Company (PLLC): A hybrid business form for licensed professions. Ownership is flexible, but actual services must be performed by licensed individuals.
Substantial Evidence: Enough relevant evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
Abuse of Discretion: A decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or premised on legal error; appellate courts rarely disturb trial courts absent clear misuse.

Conclusion

Boeshans v. Boeshans cements three important propositions in Montana family and business law: (1) statutory financial-disclosure deadlines are rigid and enforceable, (2) courts may condition or delay parental contact upon professional evaluations when justified by credible safety concerns, and (3) ownership of a PLLC may lawfully be awarded to a non-licensed spouse so long as the entity’s operations remain compliant with licensing rules. The decision provides a robust blueprint for trial judges fashioning protective parenting plans and for practitioners navigating the intersection of professional-entity law and marital-property division.