Hendershott v. Westphal

253 P.3d 806 (2011)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hendershott v. Westphal

Montana Supreme Court
253 P.3d 806 (2011)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Heidi Hendershott (plaintiff) and Jesse Westphal (defendant) married in 1999 had two children. Westphal was prone to angry outbursts. By his own admission, Westphal was a controlling and manipulative person despite his efforts not to be, and he expected Hendershott, as his wife, to do whatever he said. Around 2007, Hendershott obtained a protective order against Jesse and subsequently filed a petition for marital dissolution. The court held hearings to determine an appropriate custody arrangement and parenting plan, while interim parenting plans were ordered. An issue for the court to decide was whether Hendershott had been physically or emotionally abused, as she alleged. A licensed psychologist, Dr. Silverman, found that Westphal was insensitive, had difficulty controlling his anger, and had traditional “male-dominated” expectations of his wife. Dr. Silverman could not conclude with certainty whether Hendershott had been abused. Hendershott certainly appeared to fear Westphal, having frequently called on police or private security guards to accompany her to child exchanges. Hendershott was found to lack self-confidence, and she suffered from stress and anxiety. Another psychologist noted many red flags in the parties’ relationship for abuse, including power and control issues. Westphal wrote an apologetic note to Hendershott in which he said that he did not want to be controlling, dominating, or abusive toward her but had nevertheless been that way. The trial court found Dr. Silverman to be credible and accepted his recommendations, which included a final parenting plan in which future disputes between the parties would be submitted to mediation but that any mediation would be structured in a way to avoid direct contact between the parties. A state statute (the statute) allowed trial courts to require mediation except in cases in which the court had a reason to suspect domestic violence between the parties. Hendershott appealed, arguing that the court was not authorized to include a mediation requirement in the final parenting plan.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Baker, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership