Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Combined Opinion

                  by McKinnon](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10803263/darrah-v-haggag/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

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Darrah v. Haggag

Montana Supreme Court

• Citations: 2026 MT 43N
• Docket Number: DA 25-0463
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Nature of Suit: Direct Appeal

• Disposition: Affirmed

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (30.6K)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed

Combined Opinion

                        by [Laurie McKinnon](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/4988/laurie-mckinnon/)

03/03/2026

DA 25-0463
Case Number: DA 25-0463

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2026 MT 43N

SHANAY LEE DARRAH, On behalf of
Minor Children, J. H. and A. H.,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

ADAM KADRY HAGGAG,

Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Phillips, Cause No. DR-2024-037
Honorable Yvonne Laird, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Adam Haggag, Self-Represented, Mandan, North Dakota

For Appellee:

Jeremy S. Yellin, Attorney at Law, Havre, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 11, 2026

Decided: March 3, 3036

Filed:

---

Clerk
Justice Laurie McKinnon 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 Adam Kadry Haggag (Haggag) appeals from a permanent order of protection

restraining him from his children, A.H. and J.H., which was entered in the Seventeenth

Judicial District Court, Phillips County, on June 5, 2025. The District Court held that the

order of protection would remain permanent until each minor child reached their eighteenth

birthday. The order incorporated a prior order entered in Cause No. DR-2021-013,

Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Phillips County, on June 28, 2022, which permanently

restrained Haggag from Shanah Lee Darrah (Darrah) and restrained Haggag from A.H. and

J.H. until October 31, 2022, to allow time for Haggag to pursue a parenting plan

modification and comply with recommendations designed to improve his parenting. After

careful review of the record, we affirm the permanent order of protection for A.H. and J.H.

¶3 Darrah and Haggag had their marriage dissolved in North Dakota on April 29, 2021.

They are the biological parents of A.H. and J.H. A parenting plan providing that Darrah

was the primary caregiver and Haggag had alternating weekend visitation was issued by

the South Central Judicial District Court, Burleigh County, in North Dakota.

¶4 On June 29, 2021, following a hearing, the District Court issued an order of

protection in Cause No. DR-2021-013, Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Phillips

2
County, restraining Haggag from Darrah, A.H. and J.H. for one year. Both Haggag and

Darrah appeared for the hearing without counsel. The court outlined conditions that if met

would allow Haggag to request the order of protection be modified to allow him contact

with A.H. and J.H. Those conditions included Haggag completing a Mental

Health/Domestic Violence evaluation and complying with any recommendations, and

completing 60 hours of parenting classes.

¶5 In January of 2022, Haggag requested the court terminate the order of protection to

allow him contact with A.H. and J.H. asserting that he had satisfied the court’s conditions.

Darrah filed a motion that there was no proof of compliance with the court’s conditions

and that, further, Haggag had violated the order of protection which resulted in charges

being filed in North Dakota. She sought to renew the order of protection. The court held

a hearing on March 14, 2022, which was set over and concluded on April 26, 2022. Both

parties were represented by counsel.

¶6 On June 28, 2022, the District Court issued a permanent order of protection

restraining Haggag from having contact with Darrah and a temporary order of protection

restraining Haggag from having contact with A.H. and J.H. until October 31, 2022, at

which time the order pertaining to A.H. and J.H. would dissolve. If the order dissolved on

October 31, 2022, the court held that the parenting plan established in North Dakota or

other competent jurisdiction would control Haggag’s parenting time with A.H. and J.H.

The District Court found the evidence showed Haggag had not been forthcoming with

information to the Mental Health/Domestic Violence evaluator and that the chemical

dependency evaluator did not gather any “collateral information of any kind regarding

3
Adam’s actual substance use or attempt to verify Adam’s self-reported use in any manner.”

The court also found that Haggag had repeatedly used text messages and social media in

violation of the order, minimized his actions, and deflected blame to Darrah. The court

determined that Haggag’s testimony was self-serving and that he was minimizing his bad

behavior. The court found credible Darrah’s concerns regarding her and the children’s

safety, and that J.H. had “certainly witnessed and was adversely affected by the abusive

conduct of Adam.” Importantly, the District Court recognized that while it was unlikely

that Haggag would change his “manipulative behavior, recognize his errors, and accept

responsibility for his behaviors,” A.H. and J.H. “are very young and do have constitutional

rights to a parent child relationship with Adam if it can be developed in a positive manner.”

The court explained that “this is not a parenting plan proceeding” but added the Legislature

has “adopted statutes to promote the safety and protection of all victims of partner or family

member assault, victims of sexual assault, and victims of stalking.” The court recognized

that parenting proceedings are designed to ensure the best interests of the children are met

and that both parents and children have constitutionally protected rights. Thus, the court

extended the order of protection restraining Haggag from the children until October 31,

2022, to allow Haggag to seek modification of the parenting plan in North Dakota and to

further improve his parenting skills.

¶7 By its terms, the June 28, 2022 order of protection dissolved on October 31, 2022,

and Haggag began having contact with A.H. and J.H.

¶8 On October 4, 2024, Darrah filed a Petition for Temporary Order of Protection and

Request for Hearing (Petition), which began the instant proceeding. Darrah requested

4
Haggag be restrained from having contact with A.H. and J.H. because she alleged Haggag

had sexually assaulted A.H. by digitally penetrating her anus. The District Court issued a

temporary order of protection the same day and conducted a hearing on April 14 and 18,

1. Darrah was represented by counsel and Haggag appeared pro se.

¶9 Lona Darrah testified that she had driven to the Phillips County Courthouse to

facilitate the pickup of A.H. and J. H. on September 22, 2024. The exchange was following

a weekend the children spent with Haggag. The District Court found that while on the

drive home from the courthouse A.H. had told her grandmother, Lona Darrah, that her

bottom hurt because her father puts his finger in her bottom. Lona Darrah testified that

after visitation started with Haggag in 2023, A.H. began displaying sexualized behavior

towards men, specifically towards her grandfather, and that she had walked in on A.H.

masturbating. A.H. was four years old. The District Court found Lona Darrah’s testimony

credible.

¶10 On September 24, 2024, Theresa Ohl, a Family Nurse Practitioner at Phillips County

Hospital saw A.H. regarding the alleged assault. Ms. Ohl testified that A.H. indicated her

bottom hurt because her father touched her there. A.H. was speaking in a baby voice which

Darrah indicated was not common for her. Ms. Ohl recommended A.H. be seen by a

pediatric SANE nurse for an examination but Darrah declined due to the invasive nature of

the exam and the unlikelihood of any evidence being collected. The District Court found

Ms. Ohl’s testimony credible.

¶11 Dr. Paula Epperson, a psychologist, testified that she had been treating A.H. since

October 2024 for trauma associated with suspected sexual abuse by Haggag. Dr. Epperson

5
testified that she was told A.H. was masturbating, had become fearful of the dark, fearful

of men, and had started wetting the bed and having accidents during the day. She observed

A.H. in play therapy wiggle her hips around inappropriately, but A.H. has since

discontinued this behavior. She recommended against contact with Haggag at this time.

The District Court found Dr. Epperson’s testimony credible.

¶12 Sheriff Jerry Lytle of Phillips County testified he observed the forensic interviews

of A.H. and that she disclosed that her father put his finger in her anus. A.H. disclosed that

the incident happened at the Edgewater Hotel by the pool area in a room. Sheriff Lytle

said he forwarded his investigative file to the County Attorney’s Office but no charges

were filed. The District Court found Sheriff Lytle’s testimony credible.

¶13 Misty Anderson, Head Start site-coordinator, testified that A.H. had been in Head

Start for two years. Ms. Anderson testified that A.H. had been coming in with stomach

complaints every day but that the complaints were becoming less frequent. Ms. Anderson

testified that the only time A.H. mentioned her dad was on April 1, 2025, when she said

she would like her dad dead. Ms. Anderson had not previously heard a child of A.H.’s age

express a wish that a parent be dead. The District Court found Ms. Anderson’s testimony

credible.

¶14 Darrah testified that A.H. was adamant and clear that her bottom hurt because

Haggag put his finger in her anus. Darrah also has concerns for J.H. because J.H. was

present when the abuse was perpetrated on A.H. Darrah testified about A .H.’s sexualized

behaviors having begun when visitation with Haggag resumed in 2023. Consistent with

other witnesses, Darrah testified that the behaviors continued through September 2024 until

6
the Temporary Order of Protection was issued by the court and visitation with Haggag

stopped.

¶15 Kadry Haggag, Adam Haggag’s father, testified that he had observed Haggag parent

A.H. and J.H via Zoom and was impressed with Haggag’s parenting. The District Court

observed, however, that Kadry Haggag had only seen J. H. in person one time and that was

four years ago. The District Court noted Haggag’s other witness, Destiny Drew, was

credible. Ms. Drew said she does not have any concerns with Haggag being around her

children.

¶16 The District Court issued a written order on June 5, 2025. It concluded that based

on the record, the evidence produced at the hearing, and the earlier proceedings in

DR-2021-13, Haggag should be permanently restrained from contact with A.H. and J.H.

until each reached their eighteenth birthday. It noted that there was an existing parenting

plan in North Dakota and that two counts of felony stalking and three counts of

misdemeanor violation of an order of protection were pending in North Dakota.

¶17 This Court will not overturn a district court’s decision to continue, amend, or make

permanent an order of protection absent an abuse of discretion. Boushie v. Windsor, 2014

MT 153, ¶ 8, 375 Mont. 301, 328 P.3d 631. An abuse of discretion occurs when the court

acts arbitrarily, without the employment of conscientious judgment, or exceeds the bounds

of reason and results in a substantial injustice. Boushie, ¶ 8.

¶18 Here, our review of the record convinces us that the District Court did not abuse its

discretion when concluding that Haggag’s history of violence, the severity of the offense

at issue, and the evidence presented at the hearing warranted issuing a permanent order of

7
protection to avoid further injury or harm to A.H. and J.H. It was the District Court’s role

to assess and weigh the credibility of the witnesses, and we will not disturb those credibility

determinations. The district court was very familiar with the parties, their history, and

Haggag’s conduct. Haggag has not demonstrated that the court acted arbitrarily, did not

employ conscientious judgment, or exceeded the bounds of reason which resulted in a

substantial injustice. Haggag was given several opportunities to improve his parenting

skills and the court carefully navigated the order of protection proceeding, noting that a

parenting plan proceeding is the most appropriate forum to pursue the best interest of the

children. However, at the same time the District Court recognized the Legislature’s policy

of protecting victims of partner or family member abuse, which, it noted, included minor

child victims.

¶19 Although we find no abuse of discretion in issuing the order of protection, we would

encourage the District Court to review a future request Haggag might make to terminate

the order of protection and reestablish a parental-child relationship should Haggag present

sufficient evidence in the District Court’s opinion that the relationship would be in the

children’s best interest. Based on our review of the record we believe it unlikely but,

nonetheless, this permanent order of protection effectively terminated a parental

relationship and, as the District Court recognized, parenting plan proceedings are more

appropriate forums for courts to make decisions that are in the best interests of the children.

With that caveat, the District Court’s permanent order of protection for A.H. and J.H., until

each reaches their eighteenth birthday, is affirmed.

8
¶20 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.

¶21 Affirmed.

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

We Concur:

/S/ CORY J. SWANSON
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE

9