Partner or family member assault (PFMA) can be charged only when the other person is your partner or family member as Montana law defines those words. The relationship is an element the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot, the conduct does not disappear, but the charge may become ordinary assault, which carries different penalties and different long-term consequences. This page is part of our Montana Domestic Violence Guide.
Who the Statute Covers
MCA § 45-5-206(2) defines the two terms:
- Partners means spouses, former spouses, persons who have a child in common, and persons who have been or are currently in a dating or ongoing intimate relationship.
- Family member means mothers, fathers, children, brothers, sisters, and other past or present family members of a household. These relationships include those created by adoption and remarriage, including stepchildren, stepparents, in-laws, and adoptive children and parents, and they continue regardless of the ages of the parties and whether the parties reside in the same household.
These definitions reach further than the everyday meaning of the words. A former partner counts. An adult sibling who lives in another town counts. A person you share a child with counts even if you were never a couple. Our page on who counts as a partner or family member goes through each category.
Where the Relationship Element Can Fail
Three situations can put the element in dispute.
- People who share housing and nothing else. The statute does not list roommates, housemates, or tenants as such. Someone who is not related to you by blood, adoption, or marriage, and has never been in a dating or intimate relationship with you, does not appear in either definition.
- A disputed dating relationship. The statute does not define "dating or ongoing intimate relationship." Whether a brief or casual connection qualifies is decided on evidence such as messages, how the two people described each other, and how long it lasted. See dating relationships and PFMA.
- Distant or informal family ties. The phrase "other past or present family members of a household" has limits, but the statute does not spell them out. A cousin, a parent's partner, or a relative of a former spouse can raise a real question.
In each case the State has to present evidence of the relationship. It can do so through testimony, and the point may not be disputed. When it is disputed, it is a fact question for the judge or jury.
If Not PFMA, Then Often Assault
Montana's assault statute, MCA § 45-5-201, covers nearly the same conduct against "another": purposely or knowingly causing bodily injury, negligently causing bodily injury with a weapon, and purposely or knowingly causing reasonable apprehension of bodily injury. It also covers physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature, which the PFMA statute does not.
So a failed relationship element does not necessarily mean there is no case. It means the correct charge is a different one. Whether the prosecutor can change the charge, and when, depends on the stage of the case. In district court, for example, an information may be amended in matters of substance only with the court's permission and not less than 5 days before trial (MCA § 46-11-205(1)).
What Changes Between PFMA and Assault
| Consequence | PFMA (§ 45-5-206) | Assault (§ 45-5-201) |
|---|---|---|
| Fine | $100 to $1,000 (first offense) | Up to $500 |
| Jail | 24 hours to 1 year (first offense) | Up to 6 months, no minimum |
| Counseling | Assessment and at least 40 hours, at the offender's expense | Not required by the assault statute |
| Counts as a prior toward a later PFMA | Yes | Not on the list in § 45-5-206(3)(b) |
| Third or later offense | $500 to $50,000 and 30 days to 5 years | The assault statute has no repeat-offense tier |
Sources: MCA §§ 45-5-201(2) and 45-5-206(3) and (4). The table shows only what each of those two statutes requires. Other sentence conditions come from Montana's general sentencing statutes, which this page does not cover. For a fuller comparison see PFMA vs. assault, and for the counseling rule see the PFMA counseling requirement.
Why Priors Matter So Much
A third or subsequent PFMA conviction carries 30 days to 5 years (MCA § 45-5-206(3)(a)(iv)). The statute lists which earlier convictions count toward that number in subsection (3)(b): prior PFMA convictions, similar offenses in other states, strangulation of a partner or family member, and aggravated assault or assault with a weapon where the victim was a partner or family member, among others. A misdemeanor assault conviction under § 45-5-201 is not on that list.
That is one reason the label on a first conviction can matter years later. Our page on how prior convictions count explains the list.
Firearms: A Separate Federal Question
Federal law bars firearm possession by a person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)). The federal definition has its own relationship list: a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, a person who shares a child with the victim, a person who lives or has lived with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, a person similarly situated, and a person with a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)).
Two points follow. First, the federal list is not identical to Montana's. Second, in United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the domestic relationship need not be an element of the offense of conviction. It is enough that the offense was in fact committed against a person in one of the listed relationships. So a conviction labeled "assault" does not, by its name alone, avoid the federal ban. The elements still have to meet the federal definition, though. In United States v. DeFrance, 124 F.4th 814 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit held that the bodily injury form of PFMA, MCA § 45-5-206(1)(a), does not, because Montana's definition of bodily injury includes mental illness or impairment. That case addressed PFMA subsection (1)(a) only, so how it bears on subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), or on a conviction under the assault statute, is a question for a lawyer. Details are on does a Montana PFMA count under federal law. See the federal Lautenberg ban.
The relationship element is one of several the State must prove. Our overview of PFMA defenses covers the others.
This page explains Montana and federal law in general as of the 2025 Montana Code Annotated. It is not legal advice about your specific case.