Travel, custody and relocation in Montana

The passport rules are federal and read the same everywhere. This page is the other layer — what Montana law and Montana’s own court forms say about taking your child on a trip, moving, and who holds the passport between journeys.

See a different stateMontana
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming
Read this alongside the federal rules

Getting a child’s passport, consent letters, the Hague Convention and what actually stops a departure are the same in all fifty states — they are on the main travel page. Start there, then come back here for the part that varies.

Custody jurisdictionMont. Code Ann. tit. 40, ch. 7 (Uniform Child… Which state’s court may decide custody — and why a holiday elsewhere does not move it.
Abduction Prevention ActNoThe court still has its own powers; it just has no uniform-act toolkit to draw on.
Relocation notice30 days Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-217 (Notice of intent to move), read with § 40-4-219 (Amendment of parenting plan)
Triggered byNone but there IS a functional trigger, and it is qualitative, not geographic. § 40-4-217(1) imposes a bare written-notice duty on any parent ‘who intends to change residence,’ with no timing attached and no distance floor. The 30-day formal machinery in § 40-4-217(2) engages only ‘If a parent’s change in residence will significantly affect the child’s contact with the other parent.’ There is no mileage figure and no state-line requirement anywhere in the section; whether a move ‘significantly affects’ contact is decided on the facts. A move across Montana that wrecks a mid-week schedule can trigger the 30-day motion; a move out of state that changes nothing about contact arguably does not.

Which court decides — and why a trip does not change it

Montana custody jurisdiction sits under Mont. Code Ann. tit. 40, ch. 7 (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act), §§ 40-7-101 et seq., in three parts: pt. 1 General Provisions, pt. 2 Jurisdiction, pt. 3 Enforcement. The home-state definition is at Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-103(7): “‘Home state’ means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child less than 6 months of age, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.”. The practical point for travel is this: a child’s home state is where they lived for six consecutive months before a case started, and a temporary absence counts toward that period. A summer with grandparents in another state does not start a clock there, and it does not let the other parent file somewhere new.

Abduction-prevention powers

Montana has not enacted the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act. A judge here still has general power to impose travel conditions, but there is no dedicated statutory menu of abduction-prevention measures to point to. If risk is a live issue, the federal route on the main travel page — a valid, enforceable order prohibiting removal, routed to CBP — matters more here, not less.

Moving, and how much warning you owe

§ 40-4-217: ‘(1) A parent who intends to change residence shall, unless precluded under 40-4-234, provide written notice to the other parent. (2)(a) If a parent’s change in residence will significantly affect the child’s contact with the other parent, the parent who intends to change residence shall, pursuant to 40-4-219, file a motion for amendment of the residential schedule and a proposed revised residential schedule with the court that adopted the residential schedule or the court to which jurisdiction or venue over the child has been transferred. The motion must be served personally or by certified mail on the other parent and served pursuant to the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure on the parent’s attorney of record, if the parent has an attorney of record, not less than 30 days before the proposed change in residence. (b) The notice pursuant to this subsection (2) is not sufficient unless it contains the following statement: “The relocation of the child may be permitted and the proposed revised residential schedule may be ordered by the court without further proceedings unless within 21 days you file a response and alternate revised residential schedule with the court and serve your response on the person proposing the move and all other persons entitled by the court order to residential time or visitation with the child.” (3) The parent who receives service of a motion to amend the parenting plan pursuant to this section has 21 days after service of the motion to file a response. If the parent receiving notice objects to the proposed revised residential schedule, the responding parent shall include an alternate proposed revised residential schedule with the response. The response must be served as provided for by the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure on the parent proposing to change residence or on the parent’s attorney of record if the parent has an attorney of record. (4) If a parent is properly served with a motion to amend the parenting plan pursuant to this section, failure to file a response within the 21-day period constitutes acceptance of the proposed revised residential schedule. (5) A person entitled to file an objection to the proposed relocation of the child may file the objection regardless of whether the person has received proper notice.’

Relocation and vacation are different questions, and orders often treat them in the same paragraph. A trip is temporary; a move changes the child’s residence. Read your own order for which one your plan actually is before you assume the relocation rule does not apply.

What the standard order says about travel

Montana publishes a statewide parenting form or guideline — Montana Judicial Branch statewide self-help form MP-300, ‘Proposed / Amended Parenting Plan’ (used in In re the Marriage of and In re the Parenting of cases), backed by the statutory content list in Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-234 (Final parenting plan criteria). That matters, because its default wording is what lands in a lot of orders unchanged, and it is where your travel terms probably came from.

MP-300 has separate numbered paragraphs for passports and for travel, both drafted as check-box elections. Paragraph 7, Passport (choose all that apply): ‘Our children don’t have a passport. [ ] Petitioner/Co-Petitioner 1 or [ ] Respondent/Co-Petitioner 2 may apply for a passport for any of our children. The other parent shall cooperate by consenting to the issuance of this passport.’ / ‘If our children have a passport, it belongs to them. But [ ] Petitioner/Co-Petitioner 1 or [ ] Respondent/Co-Petitioner 2 will be the custodian of the passport.’ / ‘Other (specify).’ Paragraph 8, Travel with the Child(ren) (choose all that apply): ‘[ ] Petitioner/Co-Petitioner 1 [ ] Respondent/Co-Petitioner 2 [ ] Both parents may travel freely in the State of Montana with our children. This travel must be in keeping with our parenting time schedule.’ / ‘Both parents must notify the other parent when they are traveling out of the State of Montana with the child(ren) and provide an itinerary.’ / ‘Other (specify).’ The vacation provisions are in paragraph 4: 4(d) Winter Vacation (with a first-half/includes-Christmas and second-half/includes-New-Years split in the sample table), 4(e) Summer Vacation (either ‘No summer vacation schedule applies. The school schedule in paragraph 4(b) or pre-school schedule in paragraph 4(a) will be followed by both parents,’ or the children live with one named parent during summer vacations except for specified time with the other, or a free-text description), and 4(g) ‘Other Vacations with Parents.’ Paragraph 10 (Co-Parenting Guidelines) has a blank-fill clause: ‘Each parent will notify the other parent at least ___ days in advance if the parent needs to miss or reschedule parenting time.’ Paragraph 13 reproduces § 40-4-217 almost verbatim, including the mandatory 21-day warning statement. What the form does not supply: any number of days’ advance notice before a trip (the out-of-state clause requires notice and an itinerary but sets no lead time), any separate treatment of leaving the COUNTRY as distinct from leaving the state, and any default answer to who holds the passport — that is an election the parents make on the face of the form. The statutory backing, § 40-4-234(2)(c), requires only ‘a residential schedule specifying the periods of time during which the child will reside with each parent, including provisions for holidays, birthdays of family members, vacations, and other special occasions’; § 40-4-234(2)(b) requires ‘designation of the legal residence of both parents and the child, except as provided in 40-4-217.’ The statute itself never mentions travel notice, itineraries or passports.

Who holds the passport

Addressed in the statewide FORM, not in statute. Montana’s MP-300 parenting plan devotes paragraph 7 to the passport and does two things most states’ forms do not: it makes one named parent the ‘custodian of the passport’ while stating that the passport ‘belongs to’ the children, and it imposes an affirmative cooperation duty — ‘The other parent shall cooperate by consenting to the issuance of this passport’ — on the parent who is not the applicant. Nothing in the Montana Code Annotated mentions a child’s passport in the custody context; § 40-4-234’s parenting-plan criteria are silent on it, and because Montana has not enacted UCAPA there is no statutory passport-surrender remedy and no statutory reference to the U.S. State Department’s Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program. So a Montana parent’s passport rights come from the box they checked on the form, not from the code.

What catches people out in Montana

Montana has TWO different relocation duties in one section and they are easy to conflate. § 40-4-217(1) makes written notice mandatory for ANY change of residence, with no lead time stated. The 30-day requirement in § 40-4-217(2)(a) attaches only where the move ‘will significantly affect the child’s contact with the other parent’ — and then what must be served is not a notice letter but a MOTION to amend the residential schedule plus a proposed revised schedule.
The relocating parent files the motion. Montana puts the procedural burden on the mover, not the objector: the parent who wants to relocate must affirmatively move to amend the schedule at least 30 days out.
Silence equals consent. § 40-4-217(4): ‘If a parent is properly served with a motion to amend the parenting plan pursuant to this section, failure to file a response within the 21-day period constitutes acceptance of the proposed revised residential schedule.’ A Montana parent who ignores relocation papers for three weeks has agreed to the new schedule.
The 21-day warning is a validity requirement, not boilerplate. § 40-4-217(2)(b) says the notice ‘is not sufficient unless it contains the following statement’ and then quotes it. A relocation notice that omits that paragraph is defective.
But a defective notice does not cost the objector their rights: § 40-4-217(5) says ‘A person entitled to file an objection to the proposed relocation of the child may file the objection regardless of whether the person has received proper notice.’
There is no mileage trigger in Montana. Do not attach one. The test is the qualitative ‘significantly affect the child’s contact’ standard, so an in-state move can trigger the full 30-day motion procedure and an out-of-state move might not.
Montana’s statewide form is unusually explicit about passports — including naming a passport custodian — but it is entirely optional check-boxes. If neither box is checked, the plan is silent and there is no statutory fallback, because Montana has no UCAPA and no code provision about children’s passports.
MP-300’s out-of-state travel clause requires notice and an itinerary but sets no advance-notice period, and it does not separately address leaving the United States. A parent relying on it for international travel protection has less than they think.
Montana has not enacted UCAPA. There is no abduction-prevention petition, no statutory risk-factor list, and no statutory authority to order a passport surrendered or to enroll a child in the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program.

Sources for this page

Every fact above is taken from the source linked beside it. Where a figure could not be confirmed from an official source, this page says so rather than printing a plausible number. Found an error? Tell us — it goes on the corrections page with the date.

Every state

ALAlabamaAKAlaskaAZArizonaARArkansasCACaliforniaCOColoradoCTConnecticutDEDelawareFLFloridaGAGeorgiaHIHawaiiIDIdahoILIllinoisINIndianaIAIowaKSKansasKYKentuckyLALouisianaMEMaineMDMarylandMAMassachusettsMIMichiganMNMinnesotaMSMississippiMOMissouriMTMontanaNENebraskaNVNevadaNHNew HampshireNJNew JerseyNMNew MexicoNYNew YorkNCNorth CarolinaNDNorth DakotaOHOhioOKOklahomaOROregonPAPennsylvaniaRIRhode IslandSCSouth CarolinaSDSouth DakotaTNTennesseeTXTexasUTUtahVTVermontVAVirginiaWAWashingtonWVWest VirginiaWIWisconsinWYWyoming
Sources last checked30 August 2026
Page published30 August 2026
What this means. This is when the sources on this page were last read against their originals — statutes, court rules, official schedules — taken from the date this page was built from its sources. It is not the date the page was last edited. Adding a link or fixing a typo does not move it; re-reading the statute does. Law changes without notice, so treat anything time-sensitive as needing a fresh check. Where we get something wrong we publish it at thecusp.app/corrections with the date, what changed, and how long the error was live.