Parenting of Ludeman , 2016 MT 37N ( 2016 )

February 16 2016
DA 15-0436
Case Number: DA 15-0436
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 37N
IN RE THE PARENTING OF:
G.C.L.,
Minor,
BRIAN R. BERTOGLIO,
Petitioner and Appellee,
and
JENNY M. LUDEMAN,
Respondent and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DR-11-341
Honorable Robert L. Deschamps, III, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Howard Toole, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee:
Brad L. Belke, Attorney at Law, Butte, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: January 20, 2016
Decided: February 16, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Patricia Cotter 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 Jenny Ludeman (Ludeman) appeals from an order entered by a Standing Master of
the Fourth Judicial District Court dismissing this case. We affirm.
¶3 Ludeman gave birth to a child, G.C.L., on December 17, 2009. Brian Bertoglio
(Bertoglio) is the child’s father. Ludeman and Bertoglio were never married and their
relationship deteriorated. On May 20, 2011, Bertoglio petitioned the Fourth Judicial
District Court, Missoula County for an order establishing a parenting plan and granting
him primary custody of G.C.L. At the time of the petition, G.C.L. lived with her mother
in Missoula. Ludeman responded pro se on July 26, 2011, and requested that the District
Court adopt her proposed parenting plan and enter an order requiring Bertoglio to pay
child support. Ludeman filed her proposed parenting plan on October 26, 2011. It is
undisputed that since October, 2011, neither party has actively pursued the case in
Missoula County. In 2013, Ludeman moved to California. G.C.L. remained with her
maternal grandparents in Missoula for over a year before Ludeman brought G.C.L. to live
with her in California.
¶4 On May 27, 2014, Bertoglio filed another petition for a parenting plan and an
order granting him primary custody of G.C.L., this time with the Second Judicial District
2
Court, Silver Bow County. Bertoglio has been stationed with the U.S. Army in various
locales, but he maintains his legal residency in Butte. Ludeman failed to appear or
respond to this petition, and her default was entered. On December 19, 2014, the District
Court in Butte granted Bertoglio primary custody of G.C.L. and authorized him to travel
to California to enforce the order and take custody of G.C.L.
¶5 In March of 2015, a California Children’s Social Worker was alerted to possible
neglect of G.C.L. by Ludeman. This allegation initiated a months-long inquiry into
G.C.L.’s welfare. On May 27, 2015, a court in California granted a Children’s Social
Worker’s request to remove G.C.L. from Ludeman’s custody. The child was removed
and placed with Bertoglio on June 1, 2015, and she remains with her father.
¶6 On April 29, 2015, Bertoglio moved to dismiss the case pending in the Fourth
Judicial District Court, Missoula County for failure to prosecute. Ludeman opposed the
motion. The Standing Master dismissed the case on other grounds; Ludeman appeals the
dismissal.
¶7 Although Ludeman brings her appeal on the basis that the District Court abused its
discretion in dismissing the Missoula case, she does not present any argument on appeal
to support her claim. Rather, she complains in her briefs of actions taken in the Silver
Bow County and California custody cases—matters outside the jurisdiction of the Fourth
Judicial District Court and thus beyond the ambit of this appeal. We can address here
only the propriety of the order dismissing the instant case. Because Ludeman has failed
to support her claim of error with any argument or authority, as she is required to do
under Rule 12(1)(g) of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, she has failed to carry
3
her burden of proving error on the part of the District Court. “We have repeatedly held
that it is not this Court’s obligation to conduct legal research on behalf of a party or to
develop legal analysis that might support a party’s position.” State v. Cybulski, 2009 MT
70, ¶ 13, 349 Mont. 429, 204 P.3d 7 (citing State v. Torgerson, 2008 MT 303, ¶ 36, 345
Mont. 532, 192 P.3d 695). Therefore, we affirm the decision of the Fourth Judicial
District Court dismissing the case.
¶8 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.
¶9 Affirmed.
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
4