Non-Compelled Supervised Visitation for Traumatized Children Is Not Improper Delegation; Extracurricular Costs Must Be Reasonably Scoped and Properly Allocated

1. Introduction

Marriage of Bull (Mont. Sup. Ct. 2026 MT 128N) is a dissolution appeal arising from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, involving Preston Bull (father) and Jacqueline Bull (mother) and their three minor daughters (A.B., E.B., K.B.). The case centers on (1) the structure of father’s parenting time after extensive findings of domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, and unresolved mental health issues, and (2) the financial treatment of children’s extracurricular activity and equipment expenses in addition to guideline child support.

The Supreme Court resolved the matter by memorandum opinion and expressly stated it is noncitable and does not serve as precedent under the Court’s Internal Operating Rules. Even so, the decision illustrates how Montana courts apply settled standards to (a) claims of “delegation” when children are permitted to decline visits in a supervised-therapeutic context, and (b) “supplemental” child-related expenses outside the base guideline amount.

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court affirmed the parenting plan provisions that (i) granted mother primary physical custody and (ii) maintained father’s contact as supervised visitation with a condition that the children would not be required to attend a visit if they did not wish to do so.

The Court reversed and remanded the portion of the decree that effectively required the parents to share extracurricular activity registration and equipment expenses equally (via incorporation of mother’s proposed plan). The Court held extracurricular expenses can be included as child-related “supplemental” needs, but the district court must address them with appropriate findings—particularly concerning reasonable scope, allocation (including the income-proportional framework reflected in the rules), ability to pay, and possible guardrails (reasonableness limits, caps, notice/consent, or dispute mechanisms).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

  • Bessette v. Bessette, 2019 MT 35:
    • Role in the opinion: Provides the governing appellate framework for parenting plans: broad district court discretion; review for clear abuse of discretion; factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions reviewed for correctness.
    • Influence: Anchored the Court’s deference to the district court’s best-interests determinations, especially where multiple professionals supplied “clear and thorough insight” and the record contained extensive evidence of harm.
  • In re D.E., 2018 MT 196:
    • Role in the opinion: Supplies the articulation of “abuse of discretion” (arbitrary action, failure of conscientious judgment, or exceeding bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice).
    • Influence: Supported the Court’s conclusion that allowing children to decline supervised sessions—under these facts—was a protective condition within the court’s reasoned judgment rather than an arbitrary abdication of judicial responsibility.
  • In re Whyte, 2012 MT 45:
    • Role in the opinion: The father’s primary authority for the argument that the district court impermissibly “delegated” parenting-time decisions to children.
    • Influence and distinction: The Supreme Court distinguished In re Whyte because that case involved an 11-year-old being required to make an annual, dispositive choice of residence arrangement for the following year—an “ultimate decision” that must be made by the court. Here, by contrast, the court itself set the supervised structure and treated the children’s ability to decline attendance as a safety-focused condition in a therapeutic setting following findings of abuse and trauma-related diagnoses. The Court thus framed the provision as not delegating the parenting plan, but regulating how contact occurs to protect best interests.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. Parenting plan: “non-compulsion” at supervised visits

The Court’s reasoning proceeds from statutory best-interests requirements under § 40-4-212(1), MCA, emphasizing factors directly implicated by the record: physical abuse and threats, chemical abuse/dependency concerns, mental health, and “continuity and stability of care.” While Montana law generally recognizes frequent and continuing contact with both parents as in a child’s best interests, the statute expressly permits restriction when contact would be detrimental, particularly in the presence of abuse-related evidence.

Against that framework, the Supreme Court treated the district court’s “non-compulsion” condition as:

  • Protective (trauma-informed and responsive to the children’s diagnoses and post-visit dysregulation described by professionals);
  • Non-delegative (the district court set the supervised schedule and made the best-interest determination; the children did not control the overall parenting-time regime);
  • Record-based (multiple evaluators and therapists documented risk factors: unresolved mental health needs, substance abuse history, elevated violence risk, and the children’s adverse reactions to contact).

Importantly, the Court read the plan as allowing the children “a say in the pace of their recovery,” rather than allowing them to choose custody or unilaterally determine parenting time in the manner disapproved by In re Whyte.

B. Extracurricular expenses: permissible category, insufficient findings and structure

On the financial issue, the Court accepted the general proposition that extracurricular costs can be addressed outside the base child support amount, relying on: Admin. R. M. 37.62.123 (1998) (supplements to the primary child support allowance) and the broad authority in § 40-4-234, MCA to craft parenting-plan provisions that provide for a child’s needs, including education and development.

The reversal was driven by process and adequacy, not categorical illegality. The Court identified multiple deficiencies:

  • The decree did not meaningfully analyze extracurricular costs in the Order itself; it effectively imposed equal sharing by incorporating mother’s plan “in its entirety.”
  • The record contained limited testimony about the activities and costs, leaving the obligation insufficiently defined.
  • The governing rule contemplates dividing supplemental needs proportionately by parental share; with the court’s own income findings (mother substantially higher), an equal split required justification or adjustment.
  • The provision lacked practical controls (e.g., reasonableness limitation, advance notice/consent, cap, or dispute-resolution mechanism) that prevent one parent from effectively creating open-ended obligations for the other.

The remand instruction is notably pragmatic: the district court must assess (1) reasonable scope, (2) allocation, (3) ability to contribute given other obligations, and (4) whether guardrails are warranted, and then enter an amended decree.

3.3 Impact

Although nonprecedential, the decision is instructive in two recurring dissolution contexts:

  • Trauma-informed parenting conditions: Courts may structure supervised contact so that children are not compelled to attend particular sessions when the court has made best-interest determinations grounded in abuse findings and professional recommendations—without it being treated as an improper “delegation” under In re Whyte, so long as the court retains control over the plan’s architecture.
  • Extracurricular costs as supplemental support: Montana courts can include activity/equipment costs, but should avoid “incorporation by reference” that yields an undefined or open-ended obligation. The decision signals that careful findings and a workable mechanism (caps, notice/consent, or proportional allocation) are essential, particularly where parental incomes differ materially.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Memorandum opinion (noncitable)
A shortened decision used when the Court views the outcome as controlled by settled law. Here, the Court expressly states it cannot be cited and does not serve as precedent.
Abuse of discretion / clear error
“Abuse of discretion” asks whether the trial court made a reasoned decision within lawful bounds; “clear error” asks whether factual findings lack substantial support or were misapprehended. These deferential standards often decide parenting-plan appeals.
Improper delegation to a child
A court cannot hand over the ultimate parenting-plan decision (e.g., where the child lives) to the child. But a court can consider children’s wishes and can impose protective conditions that allow a child to decline a specific contact event—if the court itself remains the decision-maker and the condition is tied to best interests and safety.
Guideline child support vs. supplemental needs
Guideline support is the base monthly amount calculated under rules. “Supplemental” needs are additional child-related costs (beyond the base amount) that can be allocated between parents, but should be clearly defined and fairly apportioned.

5. Conclusion

Marriage of Bull affirms that, where a court makes extensive best-interests findings grounded in abuse history and professional evaluations, it may adopt a supervised-contact framework that does not force traumatized children to attend particular visits without impermissibly delegating parenting decisions. At the same time, the decision cautions that extracurricular expenses—though permissible as supplemental child-related costs—require explicit treatment: reasoned findings, defined scope, fair allocation (often proportionate to income), and practical safeguards to prevent open-ended financial exposure.