No Preliminary Injunction Against Alleged Defamation of Counselor by Estranged Wife/Ex-Client

From Patterson v. Patterson, decided by Chief Judge Brian Morris (D. Mont.) today:

James Patterson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on July 10, 2026 . Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) on July 16, 2026. Plaintiff requests the following relief (1) to enjoin Defendant Cindy Patterson (“Defendant”) from publishing defamatory statements about Plaintiff to any third party; and (2) to require Defendant to remove alleged defamatory comments posted on the internet….

Plaintiff has served as a longtime clinician, chaplain, ordained minister, military officer, VA Chaplain, and owner of a Counseling Service Business in Montana…. Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively the “Parties”) met in Montana in 2014 when Plaintiff became Defendant’s professional counselor. Defendant attended counseling sessions with Plaintiff over the course of 5 years. Plaintiff and Defendant communicated off and on every couple of months following the end of their professional relationship. Plaintiff contends that the Parties typically limited these communications to short discussions regarding Defendant’s well-being. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendant began to “aggressively pursue” him for a romantic relationship around August 2020.

Plaintiff knew Montana had enacted ethical rules prohibiting therapists from entering romantic relationships with their former clients. Upon investigation into the Montana Administrative rules, Plaintiff found it reasonable to believe he could pursue a romantic relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff alleges to have consulted with an approved supervisor with the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy in October of 2020. Plaintiff further alleges the supervisor informed him that a romantic relationship with a former client, such as Defendant, would not violate applicable ethical standards.

The Parties began a romantic relationship and ultimately married on February 12, 2021. The marriage began to deteriorate shortly thereafter in March of 2021. The Parties remain legally married while currently going through divorce proceedings. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant started to make statements concerning Plaintiff on social media and to third parties outside the divorce proceedings.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant has published defamatory statements to churches, pastors, prayer networks, Christian media outlets, counseling clients and professionals, licensing boards, Plaintiff’s ordination sponsor and religious endorser, military leadership, Montana public bodies, and social media. Plaintiff alleges Defendant demonstrates her intent to continue posting defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff, as evidenced by her X posts on July 2, 2026….

Defendant’s statements regarding the Parties’ relationship and her thoughts on how Plaintiff treated her may or may not be true. The alleged future statements have not been proven as defamatory. Additionally, if the Court were to enjoin Defendant from publishing her statements regarding their relationship, it would impose an impermissible prior restraint of her speech. For these reasons, the Court declines to enjoin Defendant from publishing statements to third parties regarding their relationship and her thoughts on Plaintiff’s personality. Further, a TRO or preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendant from “publishing further defamatory statements” would be both ineffective and overly burdensome. The Court would be placed in a role of having to determine continually what Defendant should be allowed to say.

Plaintiff may prove some of Defendant’s statements to be defamatory in future proceedings. Plaintiff has not yet met this burden. As a result, a TRO or preliminary injunction ordering Defendant to be enjoined from speaking “defamatory statements” would be ineffective, overly burdensome on the Court, and a prior restraint on Defendant’s speech….

Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to remove three comments she posted on X on May 20, 2026, and July 2, 2026. On May 20, 2026, Defendant posted: “Professionals told me [the Plaintiff] groomed me in therapy” and “believe I’m not [the Plaintiff’s] only victim.” Defendant described Plaintiff in another X post as a “communal narcissist,” and claimed that “[the Plaintiff] groomed and abused her.”

Plaintiff has not yet proven false Defendant’s comment concerning Plaintiff’s alleged grooming of her. Defendant labeling Plaintiff as a “communal narcissist” represents her opinion which merely accuses Plaintiff of being a bad person. Plaintiff has not yet proven the statements to be defamatory.

Plaintiff included in the Complaint an exhibit of text messages between the Parties. The text messages included Defendant assuring Plaintiff he did not “exploit” their professional relationship. Additionally, the Montana Board of Behavioral Health (“MBBH”) allegedly dismissed Defendant’s complaint against Plaintiff.

The text messages and the MBBH’s findings do not prove conclusory of whether Plaintiff exploited the Parties’ professional relationship. Defendant’s allegations differ materially. Now, Defendant alleges she had been “groomed” by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not provided evidence to disprove the claim. Plaintiff has not yet shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this claim when Plaintiff has not demonstrated the statements to be false.

Defendant also posted on X, “Wyoming revoked [Plaintiff’s] license,” and mentioned the Parties’ marriage. The Parties agree they got married in February of 2021. Whether the state of Wyoming revoked Plaintiff’s license remains currently unknown. Plaintiff claims he “voluntarily surrendered” his Wyoming license. Defendant alleges the Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Board (the “Board”) recommended revocation of Plaintiff’s license because of the Parties’ relationship. Defendant asserts that the Board offered an alternative of the voluntarily surrender of Plaintiff’ license in lieu of the Board formally revoking Plaintiff’s license.

The Court recognizes Defendant’s statements may harm Plaintiff in his occupation. Plaintiff has not yet introduced ample evidence showing the statements to be false. Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on merits of the claims of his libel and slander for Defendant’s posts on X….

Michael Doggett (Doggett Law Offices, PLLC) represents defendant.