The Montana Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court's decision that denied Justin Aikins' request to amend his parenting plan following his ex-wife's move. The ruling, issued on November 10, 2026, affects parents navigating custody arrangements and highlights the legal standards for modifying parenting plans in Montana.

In the case, Justin Aikins appealed a decision from the Ninth Judicial District Court of Toole County, which had denied his motion to amend the existing parenting plan. This decision stemmed from a dispute over whether his ex-wife, Loralee Aikins, moving from Shelby to Belt constituted a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of the parenting plan.

Background

Justin and Loralee Aikins were married and had four minor children before their marriage was dissolved in 2018. The couple initially agreed on an Interim Parenting Plan in August 2018, which was later finalized in November of the same year. Over the years, Justin filed several motions to amend the parenting plan, citing changes in his living situation and Loralee's planned move.

In June 2020, Justin filed a motion to amend the parenting plan after he began living part-time in Havre, Montana. By November 2020, he had moved full-time to Havre. The court had previously amended the parenting plan in August 2021, recognizing Justin's move as a change in circumstances. However, when Loralee announced her move to Belt in 2024, Justin filed another motion to amend the parenting plan, arguing that this change would affect his ability to spend time with their children.

The Ruling

The Montana Supreme Court, led by Justice Ingrid Gustafson, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court ruled that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Justin's motion to amend the parenting plan. The court noted, "The approximately ten-mile difference in the drive from Havre to Belt, rather than to Shelby, is negligible and certainly not a substantial change in circumstances."

The court emphasized that Justin failed to demonstrate how Loralee's move would significantly impact his parenting time or the children's best interests. The ruling highlighted that Justin's arguments were more about his personal convenience than the children's welfare. The court stated that the focus should remain on the children's interests, not the parents' preferences.

Impact

This ruling carries significant implications for parents seeking to modify custody arrangements in Montana. It reinforces the legal standard that a substantial change in circumstances must be demonstrated to amend a parenting plan. The court's decision serves as a reminder that minor changes, such as a relocation of a few miles, may not meet the threshold for modification.

Moreover, the ruling emphasizes the importance of stability for children in custody arrangements. By upholding the lower court's decision, the Montana Supreme Court discourages unnecessary litigation over parenting plans, encouraging parents to focus on their children's needs rather than personal grievances.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Justin plans to appeal the ruling further. However, the case highlights the ongoing challenges parents face in navigating custody disputes and the importance of demonstrating substantial changes when seeking modifications to parenting plans.