Bonser v. County of Cascade

No. 12287 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F BARBARA -.BONSEq, Formerly Barbara Sanders, Appellant, COUNTY OF CASCADE and STATE OF MONTANA, Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant : Barney Reagan, Helena, Montana Richard Shors argued, Cut Bank, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y General, Helena, Montana Thomas Mahan, S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General, appeared, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourtleau, County A t t o r n e y , Great F a l l s , Montana Michael J. Greely, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t F a l l s Montana James Walsh argued, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , G r e a t Fa 11s , Montana Submitted : February 27, 1973 M r , J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an appeal from an o r d e r g r a n t i n g permanent custody w i t h t h e r i g h t t o consent t o adoption t o t h e S t a t e Welfare De- partment of Montana. The o r d e r was made concerning t h r e e named c h i l d r e n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Cascade County, t h e Hon. Truman G. Bradford, p r e s i d i n g . The a p p e a l i s by t h e mother. The s i n g l e i s s u e i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o e n t e r an o r d e r dated February 9, 1972, g r a n t i n g per- manent custody t o t h e s t a t e . A p e t i t i o n d a t e d June 11, 1971, r e q u e s t i n g custody of f i v e of a p p e l l a n t ' s c h i l d r e n was f i l e d J u l y 9 , 1971, by t h e state. A d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r d a t e d J u l y 9 , 1971, set a h e a r i n g f o r J u l y 21, 1971, on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r custody and ordered a c i t a t i o n be i s s u e d and served on t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . The s h e r i f f ' s r e t u r n showed s e r v i c e of t h e c i t a t i o n on a p p e l l a n t on J u l y 10, 1971, and on t h e f a t h e r of one of t h e c h i l d r e n on J u l y 12, 1971, The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e c o r d f o r J u l y 21, 1971, i n d i c a t e s t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d a motion by t h e s t a t e ' s a t t o r n e y t o c o n t i n u e t h e m a t t e r f o r t h r e e months w i t h temporary custody i n t h e s t a t e , and t h e m a t t e r was continued t o October 20, 1971. O November 9, 1971, t h e s t a t e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n d a t e d n November 1, 1971, f o r permanent custody and t h e r i g h t t o consent t o adoption f o r t h r e e of a p p e l l a n t ' s c h i l d r e n . A document e n t i t l e d "Admission of Service" and d a t e d November 4 , 1971, was f i l e d on November 11, 1971. This document s t a t e d : II S e r v i c e of t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Permanent Custody i n t h e above e n t i t l e d m a t t e r , and r e c e i p t of a t r u e copy t h e r e o f , i s hereby admitted and acknow- ledged t h i s 4 t h day of November, 1971." The document showed t h e s i g n a t u r e of Gregory H. Warner, Subpoenas where i s s u e d t o s e v e r a l w i t n e s s e s f o r a h e a r i n g on November 18, 1971. Appellant and h e r a t t o r n e y , Gregory 13. Warner, were p r e s e n t a t the hearing. Testimony was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c o u r t by respondent and a p p e l l a n t . Appellant urges a l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h a t no formal c i t a t i o n was i s s u e d f o r t h e p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g permanent custody f i l e d November 9 , 1971. In this connection a p p e l l a n t urges t h a t s e r v i c e of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody on a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y , o r h e r appearance w i t h h e r a t t o r n e y f o r h e a r i n g and going forward w i t h t h e h e a r i n g , was n o t e f f e c t i v e f o r any j u r i s d i c t i o n a l purposes, The r e c o r d i s c l e a r t h a t a p p e l l a n t v o l u n t a r i l y appeared w i t h h e r a t t o r n e y , brought up t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n q u e s t i o n , was o f f e r e d a postponement of a week, and then agreed t o proceed w i t h a h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s of t h e p e t i t i o n , J u s t t h e f o r e g o i n g statement of t h e s i t u a t i o n answers the issue, C l e a r l y any o b j e c t i o n t o j u r i s d i c t i o n was waived; and j u s t a s c l e a r l y t h e c o u r t a l r e a d y had j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e mother. But, t o c l a r i f y f u r t h e r , t h e followi.ng r e c o r d i s quoted: "MR. WALSH: For t h e r e c o r d , t h e f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d r e n involved i n t h i s h e a r i n g i s dead. The f a t h e r of [one c h i l d ] i s a p a t i e n t a t t h e Veterans A d m i n i s t r a t i o n H o s p i t a l a t F o r t H a r r i s o n , He h a s given a w r i t t e n consent and waiver of n o t i c e and consent t o adoption a l r e a d y s o h e i s n o t p r e s e n t . For t h e r e c o r d t h e mother of t h e c h i l d r e n i s Barbara Bonser Lang, who i s n o t i n Court. 'ITHE COURT: A11 right, "MR. WARNER: I have one p r e l i m i n a r y m a t t e r . Has a c i t a t i o n been served on )lrs. Bonser? "fa. WALSH: I ' m s u r e i t was, "MR. WARNER: Pfrs, Bonser Lang, "THE COURT: She seems t o be h e r e i n c o u r t , " b ~ . WALSH: She i s i n c o u r t i n any e v e n t , "MR. FIARNER: For t h e r e c o r d I would l i k e t o make a n o b j e c t i o n . There a r e two p e t i t i o n s a s I under- s t a n d i t which have been f i l e d , One was f i l e d J u l y 9 , 197J, which i s an open p e t i t i o n . I t d o e s n ' t s p e c i f y permanent o r temporary custody, A s I understand i t , p r i o r t o t h i s time t h e c h i l d r e n were picked up. Secondly, on November 1st a second p e t i t i o n f o r per- manent custody was f i l e d seeking permanent custody. "THE COURT: I t a p p e a r s t o be November 9 t h , "14R. WARNER: Excuse me, I t i s d a t e d November l s t , The p e t i t i o n s e t s f o r t h t h e i r proceeding pursuant t o S e c t i o n 10-504 which i s t h e s t a t u t e governing a dependent and n e g l e c t e d proceeding. That s e c t i o n does s p e c i f y i n mandatory language t h a t a c i t a t i o n s h a l l be i s s u e d upon t h e p a r e n t s of t h e c h i l d r e n involved who a r e p r e s e n t i n t h e County. I would l i k e t o make an o b j e c t i o n a t l e a s t t o t h e second p e t i t i o n , t h a t t h i s c i t a t i o n h a s n o t been served upon t h e mother and t h a t such a d e f e c t i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t and I would r e f e r t o Henry Young, which h e l d t h a t t h e judgment was void when t h e c i t a t i o n was n o t served and S t a t e ex r e l . Cowan, 312 Pac.2d 119, which s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t c i t a t i o n f i x i n g t h e d a t e and t h e time of h e a r i n g must be i s s u e d and served upon t h e p a r e n t s a s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e - q u i s i t e t o t h e c o u r t determining custody pursuant t o any p e t i t i o n t h a t i s f i l e d , " THE COURT: I n t h o s e c a s e s , d i d anybody a p p e a r ? "IB, WARNER: Yes. "tfR. FTALSH: I f I may, your IJonor. The o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n i n t h i s c a s e was f i l e d on t h e 11th day of June, 1971. I am s u r e t h e r e c o r d and t h e minutes, minute e n t r i e s i n t h i s c a s e , w i l l show t h a t t h e mother of a l l f i v e of t h e s e c h i l d r e n have appeared p r e v i o u s l y t o t h i s and h a s appeared i n t h e company of counsel and h a s been r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel. The r e c o r d w i l l a l s o show, t h e f i l e w i l l show, t h a t on t h e 4 t h day of November, 1971, a copy of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody was served on c o u n s e l f o r t h e mother and t h a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n had been postponed u n t i l - - - a t l e a s t twice w i t h t h e consent of counsel who r e p r e s e n t e d Mrs. Bonser, M r s . Bonser has appeared p r e v i o u s l y w i t h counsel and, i f t h e Court p l e a s e , t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n was served upon h e r and t h e Court assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h a t time, Since t h a t time i t would be a u s e l e s s and meaningless a c t t o r e s e r v e h e r s i n c e s h e w a s r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel. "MR. WARNER: Your Honor, we do n o t deny we have n o t i c e of t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n , and I admitted s e r v i c e on t h e second p e t i t i o n , The only o b j e c t i o n I am r a i s i n g i s t h e one t h a t i s s e t f o r t h i n t h e statute that requires that a citation fixing the day and time of t h e h e a r i n g of such p e t i t i o n s h a l l be served upon one o r both of t h e p a r e n t s and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h a t i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l requirement, we do r a i s e t h a t o b j e c t i o n . And i t r e l a t e s p a r t i - c u l a r l y t o t h e subsequent p e t i & n t h a t was f i l e d f o r permanent custody. N w on t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n o ---you s a y i t was f i l e d July--June 111 "MR, WALSH: 1 ' m n o t s u r e of t h e d a t e of t h e f i l i n g , "THE COURT: The o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n was f i l e d on J u l y t h e 9th. "MR. WARNER: J u l y t h e 9 t h , Secondly, I would l i k e t o make a second o b j e c t i o n t h a t i t i s m understanding y of t h e f a c t s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were picked up w i t h o u t process on approximately June l l t h , o r June 1 5 t h s f 1971, and t h a t t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s o proceeding pursuant t o S e c t i o n 10-503, i t s t a t e s : '1t s h a l l be t h e d u t y of s a i d o f f i c e r w i t h i n 48 hours t h e r e a f t e r t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n and proceed a s h e r e i n provided f o r . ' To t h a t e x t e n t , we would make t h e o b j e c t i o n t o t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n t h a t i t was n o t f i l e d w i t h i n 48 hours of t h e time t h e c h i l d r e n were picked up. "MR. WALSH: I f I may, your Honor, t h e S t a t e con- tends any such o b j e c t i o n was waived by any p a r t y who may r a i s e t h e o b j e c t i o n a t a l l by v i r t u e of t h e f a c t t h a t she a g a i n d i d appear i n c o u r t pursuant t o t h e c i t a t i o n on t h e 2 1 s t day of J u l y . A t t h a t time, i n t h e presence of c o u n s e l , and I t h i n k t h e minutes w i l l show t h i s , t h e r e was a s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n could be k e p t i n t h e custody of t h e Welfare Department u n t i l t h e 20th of October, a t which time on t h e 20th of October t h e m a t t e r was a g a i n continued w i t h t h e consent of counsel and w i t h t h e consent of t h e mother. And a g a i n c o n t a i n e d u n t i l today, b o t h by s t i p u l a t i o n of counsel and t h e mother. "MR. WARNER: Your Honor, we r e c o g n i z e t h a t we have s t i p u l a t e d t o t h a t temporary custody, b u t t h e objec- t i o n we a r e making i s p u r e l y j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . And j u r i s d i c t i o n h a s t o b e determined a t t h e time of t h e commencement of t h e a c t i o n . I f i t was l a c k i n g a t t h e time t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d then t h e c o u r t would b e without power t o e x e r c i s e any d e t e r m i n a t i o n pur- suant t o t h a t p e t i t i o n . "THE COURT: Let m a s k you, do you want t o h e a r e t h i s n e x t week o r do you want t o h e a r i t today? I can c o n t i n u e t h e m a t t e r u n t i l n e x t Thursday. She i s h e r e and we w i l l l e t h e r lcnow s o t h a t s h e h a s had--- t h a t w i l l t a k e t h e p l a c e of t h e c i t a t i o n I would hope. She i s h e r e and p r e s e n t and would know. I f you want t o h e a r i t n e x t week, we could come back n e x t week and do i t , I f you want t o h e a r i t now, we can h e a r i t now. "MR. WARNER: I a m n o t going t o waive any r i g h t s she may have t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n i f t h e r e i s any d e f e c t i n t h e r e c o r d a s i t s t a n d s now, "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , She knows now she w i l l be h e r e n e x t Thursday. "MR. WARNER: I d o n ' t know i f t h a t i s t h e s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem. "THE COURT: It c e r t a i n l y does i t . The only purpose of t h e c i t a t i o n i s t o g i v e them n o t i c e t o be here s o they know when t h e h e a r i n g i s . That i s t h e purpose o f t h e c i t a t i o n , I f s h e knows, why does she know. "MR. WARNER: W e a r e w i l l i n g t o proceed a t t h i s time, b u t 1 ' m n o t going t o waive any o b j e c t i o n t h a t we may have t o t h e s e r v i c e of t h e c i t a t i o n . "THE COURT: How d i d she g e t n o t i c e t o be h e r e today? "MR. WARNER: A f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n we were prepared t o come h e r e a t 10:30 and i t was postponed u n t i l 2:00, "THE COURT: How d i d she know i t was today? "MR. WARNER: I p e r s o n a l l y went t o h e r house a t 5:30 y e s t e r d a y and t o l d h e r t h e h e a r i n g was t o be h e l d today a t 10:30. "THE COURT: D you need any f u r t h e r time t o p r e p a r e o f o r t h e h e a r i n g ? How long have you known about i t ? "MR.. WARNER: W a r e ready t o proceed w i t h t h e h e a r i n g e i f t h e Court wants t o proceed. II "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , l e t ' s go. ~ p ~ e l l a n t argument hinges e n t i r e l y on t h e f o r m a l i t y 's of i s s u a n c e and s e r v i c e of a c i t a t i o n . However, a p p e l l a n t ' s argument overlooks t h e c l e a r f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t a l r e a d y had j u r i s d i c t i o n and a p p e l l a n t ' s a c t i o n s were a waiver a s t o pro- cedural r i g h t s , Appellant c i t e s s e c t i o n 10-504, R.C,M. 1947, which s p e c i f i e s t h e i s s u a n c e of c i t a t i o n and s e r v i c e of n o t i c e f o r t h e obvious purpose of due process of law and f a i r n e s s , It provides f o r two days n o t i c e , It i s designed t o g i v e n o t i c e f o r p r e p a r a t i o n of f a c t s o r defenses. It provides f o r temporary, expedient measures w i t h subsequent formal proceedings. Just a s h e r e , under t h e r e c o r d h e r e t o f o r e s e t f o r t h , once j u r i s d i . c - t i o n i s had i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s may waive t h e i r r i g h t s . Appellant a l s o c i t e s S t a t e e x r e l . Cowan v. D i s t r i c t Court, 131 Mont, 502, 312 P.2d 119, f o r t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t a c i t a t i o n must i s s u e a s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e . Cowan does s t a n d f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i f anyone o t h e r than t h e w e l f a r e de- partment b r i n g s t h e a c t i o n , i t i s mandatory t h a t a c i t a t i o n i s s u e and be served on t h e w e l f a r e department, a s s e c t i o n 10-504 provides. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , j u r i s d i c t i o n was had a t a l l times. The mother was r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel a t a l l times. She had a s e r i e s of h e a r i n g s and postponements and f i n a l l y appeared v o l u n t a r i l y . I f n o t h i n g e l s e , t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r and d i r e c t i o n on t h e day of h e a r i n g i s , under t h e s e circumstances, a c i t a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t e . The a p p e l l a n t , through c o u n s e l , c l e a r l y waived t h e o t h e r procedural r i g h t s . W f i n d no e r r o r , e Appellant h a s n o t urged nor argued t h e m e r i t s , b u t we have s t u d i e d t h e t r a n s c r i p t and f i n d t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n , i n view of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g , show t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t j u d g e ' s o r d e r was proper. I >'c i'r Jc 9 ; M. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly and M r . . J u s t i c e Frank I , Haswell r dissenting: W dissent. e W do n o t q u a r r e l w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s on e t h e m e r i t a s i t concerns t h e h e a l t h and w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n . The problem h e r e i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had j u r i s - d i c t i o n i n t h i s c a s e , t h a t i s , t h e r i g h t t o h e a r and determine the matter a t a l l , Here t h e S t a t e of Montana f i l e d a p e t i t i o n on June 11, 1971, seeking temporary custody of f i v e c h i l d r e n ; had a proper c i t a t i o n i s s u e d ; a h e a r i n g d a t e s e t ; and t h e p a r t i e s served a s d i r e c t e d by s e c t i o n 10-504, R.C.M. 1947, and thereby acquired j u r i s d i c - t i o n f o r t h a t purpose. The hearing was continued f o r t h r e e months, with temporary custody i n t h e S t a t e , u n t i l October 20, 1971. That hearing was never held. O November 9, 1971, t h e S t a t e of Montana f i l e d a new n p e t i t i o n seeking permanent custody and t h e r i g h t t o consent t o adoption f o r only t h r e e of t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n . A proper c i t a t i o n was never issued o r served on t h e p a r e n t s . The S t a t e served t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e p a r e n t s under t h e amended complaint theory,with t h e p e t i t i o n . The S t a t e argues t h a t t h e purpose of t h e c i t a t i o n and s e r v i c e i s f o r "notice" and t h e r e f o r e i t has met t h e requirements of t h e s t a t u t e . This i s a new a c t i o n , not a f f e c t i n g a l l of t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n f o r temporary custody, asking t o - e x t i n g u i s h a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a s opposed t o merely custody a s was asked f o r o r i g i n a l l y . The issuance and s e r v i c e of c i t a t i o n i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and f a i l u r e t o comply leaves t h e c o u r t without authority t o act. This Court previously so held i n t h e following decision: I n t h e Matter of Declaring Georgia Arlene Young a Dependent and Neglected Child, 143 Mont. 230, 232, Associate J u s t i c e s .