Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

                  by Bidegaray](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10799921/marriage-of-cool/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Marriage of: Cool

Montana Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 MT 38N
• Docket Number: DA 25-0223
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Nature of Suit: Direct Appeal

• Disposition: AFFIRMED

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

AFFIRMED

Combined Opinion

                        by Bidegaray

02/24/2026

DA 25-0223
Case Number: DA 25-0223

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2026 MT 38N

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

ABIGAIL COOL,

Petitioner and Appellee,

and

MATTHEW EARL COOL,

Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DR 21-261
Honorable Mary Jane Knisely, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Penelope S. Strong, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana

For Appellee:

Daniel Ball, Hendrickson Law Firm, P.C. Billings, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 4, 2026

Decided: February 24, 2026

Filed:

---

Clerk
Justice Katherine Bidegaray 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 Matthew Cool (Matthew) appeals from the Final Parenting Plan entered by the

Thirteenth Judicial District Court following dissolution of his marriage to Abigail Cool

(Abigail). He argues the District Court clearly erred in characterizing his work schedule

as “ever-changing,” abused its discretion in weighing the best-interests factors under

§ 40-4-212, MCA, and improperly curtailed his parenting time with the parties’ two minor

sons.

¶3 A district court’s findings of fact underlying a parenting plan are reviewed for clear

error. In re Marriage of Crowley, 2014 MT 42, ¶ 44, 374 Mont. 48, 318 P.3d 1031. If the

findings are not clearly erroneous, we review the parenting determination for abuse of

discretion. In re Marriage of Epperson, 2005 MT 46, ¶ 17, 326 Mont. 142, 107 P.3d 1268.

A court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds

the bounds of reason, resulting in substantial injustice. Epperson, ¶ 17. Conclusions of

law are reviewed for correctness. Epperson, ¶ 16. The district court is required to consider

the best-interests factors set forth in § 40-4-212, MCA, but it is not required to make

specific findings on each statutory factor so long as the findings are sufficient to permit

appellate review and demonstrate that the decision was based on the children’s best

2
interests. In re Marriage of Woerner, 2014 MT 134, ¶ 15, 375 Mont. 153, 325 P.3d 1244;

In re Marriage of Keating, 212 Mont. 462, 465-67, 689 P.2d 249, 251-52 (1984).

¶4 The parties were married in 2009; separated in March 2021; stipulated to an interim

parenting plan arrangement at a December 9, 2021 hearing; and had their dissolution

hearing September 13-15, 2022. The District Court issued its Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, and a Final Parenting Plan on October 21, 2024. The record reflects

that, throughout most of the marriage, Abigail was the children’s primary caregiver.

Following the parties’ separation in 2021, the children continued to reside primarily with

her. During the pendency of the dissolution, the parties followed a stipulated interim

parenting arrangement pursuant to which Matthew exercised parenting time corresponding

largely with his days off from his rotating mine schedule at his employment with the

Stillwater Mine. That arrangement remained in place for an extended period prior to trial.

¶5 At trial, evidence established that the Stillwater Mine operates on a repeating

rotation, alternating day and night shifts with varying blocks of days on and days off.

Although the rotation pattern itself is consistent over time, the specific days of the week

and times of availability vary, and transitions between day and night shifts require

adjustment periods. The District Court found that this schedule did not provide a

sufficiently stable and predictable framework upon which to structure a primary residential

schedule given the children’s ages and established routines.

¶6 The court further found that Abigail had historically provided the children’s daily

care, schooling oversight, and medical coordination; that the children were adjusted to the

routines established in her home; and that continuity and stability of care favored

3
maintaining a residential structure similar to the parties’ stipulated interim arrangement.

The court expressly considered the statutory best-interests factors set forth in § 40-4-212,

MCA, and determined that the children’s immediate needs for stability and predictability

were best served by designating Abigail as primary residential parent while preserving

regular parenting time with Matthew. Although Matthew characterizes the final parenting

plan as limiting him to “48 days per year,” the schedule largely reflected the arrangement

the parties had been following since December 2021, including weekend blocks tied to his

scheduled days off and additional mid-week parenting time.

¶7 Matthew contends the court clearly erred in describing his schedule as

“ever-changing.” While Matthew’s work rotation follows a fixed mathematical cycle, the

District Court’s findings properly focused on the practical unpredictability of that schedule

from the perspective of the children’s daily routines. Substantial evidence supports the

court’s determination that a schedule shifting across weekdays and weekends, and

alternating between day and night shifts, does not provide the stable framework necessary

for children of these ages and developmental stages. The District Court expressly found

that, although the rotation itself repeats, Matthew did not present evidence of predictable

weekday or time-of-day availability upon which to structure a child-centered residential

schedule. On this record, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that the District

Court erred. Crowley, ¶ 44.

¶8 Matthew further argues that the court improperly elevated continuity of care over

the Legislature’s policy favoring frequent and continuing contact with both parents because

it failed to determine that an equal or expanded parenting schedule would be detrimental

4
before adopting a plan that allowed Abigail to continue as the primary residential parent.1

Section 40-4-212, MCA, requires courts to determine parenting arrangements in

accordance with the best interests of the child. Montana law does not create a presumption

of equal residential time. Although § 40-4-212(1)(l), MCA, recognizes that frequent and

continuing contact with both parents is generally in a child’s best interests absent a finding

of detriment, it does not require a district court to adopt an equal or expanded residential

schedule simply because no finding of detriment has been made. Moreover, the Final

Parenting Plan fulfilled the statutory preference for frequent and continuing contact by

preserving Matthew’s weekend blocks and mid-week time; the court was not required to

find that an equal residential schedule was detrimental before concluding it was not in the

children’s best interests. The District Court did not find Matthew unfit or conclude that

contact with him was detrimental. Rather, it determined that equal or expanded residential

time was not presently in the children’s best interests given their ages, established routines,

and Matthew’s work schedule. That determination falls within the court’s broad discretion

in parenting matters.

¶9 The court’s findings are sufficient to permit appellate review and demonstrate that

the decision was grounded in the statutory framework. See Woerner, ¶ 15. Although

Matthew urges this Court to reweigh the evidence and adopt a different allocation of

parenting time, our role is limited. Where substantial evidence supports the findings and

1
Section 40-4-212(1)(l), MCA, includes as one of the best interest factors: “whether the child has
frequent and continuing contact with both parents, which is considered to be in the child’s best
interests unless the court determines, after a hearing, that contact with a parent would be
detrimental to the child’s best interests.”
5
the court has applied the correct legal standards, we will not substitute our judgment for

that of the trial court.

¶10 The District Court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. Its parenting

determination was not an abuse of discretion. To the extent Matthew contends

circumstances may warrant a different schedule in the future, § 40-4-219, MCA, provides

a mechanism for modification upon a showing of changed circumstances affecting the

children’s best interests.

¶11 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. This appeal presents

no constitutional issues, no issues of first impression, and does not establish new precedent

or modify existing precedent.

¶12 Affirmed.

/S/ KATHERINE M. BIDEGARAY

We Concur:

/S/ CORY J. SWANSON
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE

6