A Montana father sought to change his parenting plan after his former wife moved, arguing it made visits harder; the state Supreme Court ruled that 10 extra driving miles were not enough to reopen the arrangement

Adding just 10 miles to a driving route is not a major enough change to justify modifying an existing parenting plan, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled. The decision followed an appeal in case DA 26-0231 (In re the Marriage of Aikins), which began in the Ninth Judicial District Court in Toole County. Justin L. Aikins asked the court to change his existing parenting schedule after his former wife, Loralee J. Aikins (now Loralee J. Lords), moved to a different home. He argued that the extra distance made it harder for him to spend time with their children. District Judge Gregory L. Bonilla initially rejected the father’s request to change the parenting plan. Aikins then appealed to Montana’s highest court. Chief Justice Cory Swanson assigned the case to a panel of five justices to decide whether the lower court had made a mistake by refusing to review the parenting schedule. After reviewing the case, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision. The justices ruled that adding 10 miles to a journey was not enough to meet the legal requirements for changing a final parenting plan.

Legal threshold for modifying parenting plans

Under Montana family law, courts must focus on keeping children’s lives stable. An existing parenting agreement cannot be changed unless there is a major change in circumstances that affects the child’s well-being or the parents’ ability to care for them. In his appeal, Justin Aikins argued that his former wife’s move had created practical problems with picking up and dropping off the children. He said the extra travel had changed the arrangements that were in place when the original agreement was made. He asked the court to review the schedule and change the travel arrangements or adjust parenting time to account for the additional driving. However, the Supreme Court found that small changes in location within the same local area were not enough to reopen a court order. The justices explained that slightly longer journeys are a normal part of everyday life. Such changes do not automatically harm a child or make an existing parenting schedule impossible to follow.

Proceedings in the Ninth Judicial District

The dispute began as part of ongoing legal proceedings following the divorce in Toole County, under District Court Cause No. DR-2018-019. After the original divorce and custody orders were made, both parents followed an agreed schedule for several years before the mother moved. When Loralee Lords changed her home address, Justin Aikins filed a request with the Ninth Judicial District Court to change the parenting arrangements. During hearings before Judge Bonilla, the court looked at exactly how much extra travel the move had created. The findings showed that the distance between the two homes had increased by about 10 miles. Judge Bonilla decided that the small increase in driving distance did not amount to a major change affecting the child’s best interests. After the District Court rejected his request, Aikins filed an appeal with the Montana Supreme Court in April 2026. He represented himself without a lawyer. Loralee Lords, meanwhile, had legal representation from the Great Falls law firm Faure Holden Attorneys at Law, PC.

Court mediation and final panel review

Before deciding the appeal, the case went through a required mediation process under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. Supreme Court records show that an initial mediator appointment was cancelled in May 2026. The two parties then agreed to work with mediator Tamara Barkus. However, the mediation did not lead to an agreement between the parents. The mediator filed a report confirming that the dispute remained unresolved. The case then returned to the usual appeals process.Both sides submitted their written arguments during the summer of 2026. Chief Justice Cory Swanson later issued an order sending the case to a panel of five justices for a decision based on those written arguments. The court reviewed whether the lower court had correctly followed Montana’s existing legal rules on relocation and parental rights. By upholding Judge Bonilla’s decision, the panel reinforced the rules that apply to custody disputes across Montana. The justices confirmed that small changes in travel distance cannot automatically be used by parents with joint or shared custody arrangements as a reason to reopen an established parenting schedule. The ruling sets a clear limit for future family law disputes across the state. It shows that small moves of just a few miles are not enough to reopen settled custody cases unless there is other evidence showing a direct negative effect on the child’s well-being.