No. 12795
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1974
D R T Y ARLEEN LOVE,
OOH
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
ERNEST LOVE,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable F r a n k E. B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
Schulz and D a v i s , D i l l o n , Montana
C a r l M. Davis a p p e a r e d and John Warren, a r g u e d ,
D i l l o n , Montana
F o r Respondent :
N e i l H a i g h t a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
W. G. G i l b e r t , 111, a p p e a r e d , D i l l o n , Montana
Submitted: November 21, 1974
?..t'i"' ; .
: ,! ![ - 2, ,? 7 q 4 t
Filed :
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
T h i s i s a d i v o r c e and c h i l d custody c a s e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
of t h e f i f t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county o f Beaverhead, g r a n t e d
p l a i n t i f f mother Dorothy Arleen Love a divorce but granted
custody of two minor c h i l d r e n t o defendant f a t h e r E r n e s t Love.
P l a i n t i f f moved t o a l t e r and amend t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of
f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and f o r a new t r i a l , which motions
were denied and a p p e a l was taken.
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n :
1. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by awarding
custody o f t h e ~ a r t i e s 'two minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r where
t h e r e was no evidence showing t h e mother was n o t a f i t and proper
person t o b e e n t r u s t e d w i t h t h e custody of h e r c h i l d r e n ?
2. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l ?
P l a i n t i f f mother and defendant f a t h e r had been married p r e v i o u s l y ,
n o t o n l y t o each o t h e r , b u t t o persons n o t p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n .
The mother married a Iqr. Vezina i n 1945 and had t h r e e c h i l d r e n by
him. The t h r e e c h i l d r e n of t h i s marriage a r e Robert, a g e 27; Linda,
age 25; and Steven, age 14. This marriage terminated w i t h M r .
Vezina's d e a t h i n 1959.
The f a t h e r w a s married p r e v i o u s l y and h a s f i v e c h i l d r e n by o t h e r
women. These c h i l d r e n a r e Danny, age 21; Dennis, age 18; Dale, age 14;
Marie S u z e t t e , age 13; and Robert age 5. None of t h e s e c h i l d r e n has
e v e r been i n h i s custody a f t e r a d i v o r c e , n o r has he e v e r c o n t r i b u t e d
t o t h e i r support.
The c h i l d r e n o f t h e p r e s e n t marriage are John aged 11; and
J e f f r e y aged 4 .
The c h i l d r e n o f ~ o r o t h y ' smarriage t o M r . Vezina have been i n
h e r custody throughout t h e i r l i v e s and have been r a i s e d w i t h t h e
Love c h i l d r e n a s s i b l i n g s , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e i r b i o l o g i c a l h a l f -
blood r e l a t i o n s h i p . P a r t i c u l a r l y i s t h i s t r u e with respect t o t h e
younger ones who have been r a i s e d t o g e t h e r a s b r o t h e r s .
Defendant Ernest i s unable t o work due t o d i s a b i l i t i e s and
l i v e s on approximately $330 p e r month from s o c i a l s e c u r i t y and
Veterans D i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t payments. H e o c c a s i o n a l l y supplements
h i s income w i t h odd job work. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e , he had
a n e q u i t y of over $1,000 i n a small home valued a t approximately
$6,000.
P l a i n t i f f Dorothy's income was $352 monthly, c o n s i s t i n g o f
$164 r e p r e s e n t i n g S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r h e r son Steven
Vezina, $108 S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r h e r s e l f and t h e p a r t i e s 1
two c h i l d r e n ; and approximately $80 i n wages f o r a c l e a n i n g job.
Due t o t h e d i v o r c e and t h e g i v i n g of custody of t h e two c h i l d r e n
t o defendant f a t h e r h e r income from s o c i a l s e c u r i t y f o r t h e b e n e f i t
o f t h o s e c h i l d r e n terminated.
According t o t h e testimony one problem of t h e marriage concerned
Dorothy's o l d e s t son, Robert. Dorothy t e s t i f i e d t h a t E r n e s t was
j e a l o u s o f a l l h e r c h i l d r e n by Vezina b u t p a r t i c u l a r l y Robert whom
E r n e s t t e s t i f i e d w s an a l c o h o l i c and used drugs. Robert i s a V i e t
Nam v e t e r a n who r e c e i v e s t r e a t m e n t a t F o r t Harrison Veterans
h o s p i t a l i n Helena. H i s d i s a b i l i t i e s were n o t designated.
Whatever Robert Vezina's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p a r t i e s '
m a r i t a l d i f f i c u l i t i e s , i t was confused by t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h
t h e r o l e played by Steven t h e 14 y e a r o l d . The t r i a l c o u r t
a s c r i b e d R o b e r t ' s c h a r a c t e r t o Steven, even though Robert had n o t
l i v e d a t t h e family home f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s , although he v i s i t e d
t h e r e and w a s i n D i l l o n a t t h e t i m e Dorothy was e i t h e r ordered o u t
o f t h e home, a s s h e t e s t i f i e d , o r l e f t o f h e r own f r e e w i l l , a s
Ernest t e s t i f i e d .
Both p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e 14 y e a r o l d Steven n e v e r caused
any problems and i n f a c t was a f i n e i n f l u e n c e on h i s younger b r o t h e r s .
Dorothy a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t based i t s d e c i s i o n on a d e s i r e
t o s e p a r a t e t h e p a r t i e s 1 c h i l d r e n from Robert, who seldom v i s i t s
h i s mother, and a r e a d i n g of t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s
i s t h e problem. The c o u r t found i n i t s m o d i f i c a t i o n o r d e r o f a
previous f i n d i n g :
!?hat p l a i n t i f f and defendant have had much trouble
over t h e v i s i t s of Robert Vezina, a son of t h e
p l a i n t i f f by a previous marriage. The c o u r t ' s d i s -
p o s i t i o n o f t h e custody of t h e Love c h i l d r e n w i l l
c o r r e c t t h e s i t u a t i o n s o t h a t 14rs. Love can e n t e r t a i n
h e r son, Robert, i n h e r home from time t o t i m e a s
occasion r e q u i r e s and enjoy every o t h e r week-end w i t h
t h e two boys involved i n t h i s a c t i o n . "
Here, t h e p r i n c i p a l i s s u e i s t o determine whether, under t h e
f a c t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding t h e custody
of t h e two minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r , r a t h e r than t o t h e mother.
N evidence c o n t e s t e d o r d i s p u t e d t h e f i t n e s s o f t h e mother t o
o
have custody of t h e c h i l d r e n . The t r i a l c o u r t noted i n i t s memorandum
t h a t w h i l e he made no r u l i n g on h e r f i t n e s s t o have custody, t h a t :
II
There was no occasion t o do s o s i n c e t h e p r i n c i p a l
c a r e and custody w a s placed i n t h e i r f a t h e r . The
law n e i t h e r does n o r r e q u i r e s i d l e a c t s . See s e c t i o n
49-124, R.C.M. 1947.
U l "
"Complaint i s made because we found i t was f o r t h e
b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e s e two boys t o be r a i s e d by t h e i r
f a t h e r . W d i d n o t want t o s e p a r a t e t h e s e boys. W
e e
interviewed t h e o l d e r boy and found no reason i n t h e
i n t e r v i e w , t o award them t o t h e mother. I n f a c t , t h e
Court observed P l a i n t i f f and Defendant v e r y c a r e f u l l y
w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g and based upon h i s t r i a l p r a c t i c e of
50 y e a r s i n v o l v i n g such m a t t e r s , a r r i v e d a t t h e con-
c l u s i o n t h a t t h e s e two boys would be much b e t t e r c a r e d
f o r by t h e i r f a t h e r . The h a t r e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f f o r
t h e i r f a t h e r , w a s q u i t e a p p a r e n t and h e r r e f u s a l t o
permit him t o s e e them p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l was i n d e f e n s i b l e .
* Jc *.I1
T h i s perhaps was t h e b a s i s upon which t h e t r i a l judge made h i s
d e c i s i o n n o t t o make a f i n d i n g of f i t n e s s f o r t h e mother f o r t h e
r e c o r d i s b a r e of any evidence t h a t s h e was n o t a good mother.
R.ecognizing t h a t t h e t r i a l judge h a s w e l l over 50 y e a r s of t r i a l
e x p e r i e n c e , we cannot b u t h e l p observe t h a t i n most d i v o r c e s , and
e s p e c i a l l y c a s e s where t h e custody of c h i l d r e n i s b e i n g determined,
t h a t d i s l i k e o r h a t r e d evidenced by t h e c o n t e s t a n t s i s n o t novel
n o r unusual. I n custody c a s e s , a s h e r e , t h e c o u r t should determine
t h e f i t n e s s of both p a r t i e s and i t was e r r o r n o t t o so r u l e h e r e ,
where we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s .
Against t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e mother evidenced
h a t r e d f o r t h e f a t h e r , we have a r e c o r d made i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t of
a t o t a l f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t o f t h a t f a t h e r t o make any e f f o r t t o
s u p p o r t c h i l d r e n o f o t h e r marriages even though i n one i n s t a n c e he
was taken t o c o u r t t o e n f o r c e t h e payments t o some of t h o s e
c h i l d r e n and found g u i l t y of contempt.
The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t o r y law i s s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947,
and t h e c a s e s a r i s i n g thereunder. The p e r t i n e n t p a r t s of t h i s
statute are:
"Rules of awarding custody of minors. I n awarding t h e custody
of a minor, o r i n a p p o i n t i n g a g e n e r a l guardian, t h e c o u r t
o r o f f i c e r i s t o be guided by t h e following c o n s i d e r a t i o n s :
"1. By what a p p e a r s t o be f o r 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 i n r e s p e c t t o i t s temporal and i t s mental and
moral w e l f a r e , and i f t h e c h i l d b e of s u f f i c i e n t age t o
form an i n t e l l i g e n t p r e f e r e n c e , t h e c o u r t may c o n s i d e r
t h a t p r e f e r e n c e i n determining t h e q u e s t i o n .
"2. A s between p a r e n t s a d v e r s e l y claiming t h e custody
o r guardianship, n e i t h e r parent i s e n t i t l e d t o i t a s of
r i g h t ; b u t o t h e r t h i n g s b e i n g e q u a l , i f t h e c h i l d be of
t e n d e r y e a r s , i t should be given t o t h e mother; i f i t b e of
an age t o r e q u i r e education and p r e p a r a t i o n f o r l a b o r o r
b u s i n e s s , then t o t h e f a t h e r . "
The t r i a l judge i n h i s memorandum quoted from D m v . Damrn,
am
82 Mont. 239, 247, 266 P. 410, noted:
"* ** and i t i s o n l y on a showing of manifest abuse
o f such d i s c r e t i o n t h a t t h e award made by t h e t r i a l
c o u r t w i l l be d i s t u r b e d . "
W a g r e e t h a t t h i s i s a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r on review, b u t i n
e
looking a t ~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t o r y law s e c t i o n 91-4515 ( 2 ) , R.C.M.
1947, we n o t e t h a t t h i s Court has i n i t s r e c e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s of
t h e s t a t u t e l a i d c o n s i d e r a b l e import t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e mother
i n t h e c a s e o f c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s . Here, w e have two young
boys John Michael, age 11, and J e f f e r y , age 4. They have grown up
w i t h t h e i r h a l f - b r o t h e r Stephen, age 14, who everyone a g r e e s i s
a f i n e young man and who h a s much good i n f l u e n c e over h i s younger
brothers. W can s e e no b e n e f i t i n t a k i n g t h e two boys away from
e
t h e i n f l u e n c e of a good mother and an exemplary o l d e r b r o t h e r and
awarding them t o a f a t h e r because t h e c o u r t d i d n o t want t o s e p a r a t e
t h e blood b r o t h e r s .
This Court i n a r e c e n t c a s e , McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont.
419, 498 P.2d 1189, where custody had been given t h e f a t h e r due
t o t h e emotional d i f f i c u l t i e s of t h e mother a t t h e time of t h e
d i v o r c e , awarded h e r custody a f t e r a h e a r i n g t h a t showed t h e mother
had. r e m a r r i e d , had overcome h e r emotional d i f f i c u l t i e s and had
q u i t a job i n o r d e r t o r a i s e h e r c h i l d . The Court found t h a t i t
.was i n 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 t o be r a i s e d by t h e mother.
T h i s Court i n Hoppe v. Hoppe, 138 Mont. 239, 241, 356 P.2d
44, c i t i n g Freeland v. F r e e l a n d , 99 Wash. 482, 159 P. 699, speaking
t o t h e l o g i c of o u r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s noted:
11 1
Mother l o v e i s a dominant t r a i t i n even t h e weakest
of women, and a s a g e n e r a l t h i n g s u r p a s s e s t h e p a t e r n e l
a f f e c t i o n f o r t h e common o f f s p r i n g , and, moreover, a
c h i l d needs a mother's c a r e even more than a f a t h e r ' s .
For t h e s e r e a s o n s c o u r t s a r e l o a t h e t o d e p r i v e t h e mother
of t h e custody of h e r c h i l d r e n , and w i l l n o t do s o u n l e s s
i t i s shown c l e a r l y t h a t she i s s o f a r an u n f i t and i m -
proper person t o be i n t r u s t e d w i t h such custody a s t o en-
danger t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n ! "
See a l s o : Trudgen v. Trudgen, 134 Mont. 174, 176, 329 P.2d
I n an e a r l i e r c a s e , b u t i n l i n e w i t h t h e philosophy of t h i s
Court, i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e custody of c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s ,
Ex p a r t e Bourquin, 88 Mont. 118, 124, 290 P. 250, t h i s Court s a i d :
**W conceive t h e law t o b e t h a t i t i s our d u t y
e
t o award t h e i n f a n t c h i l d t o t h e mother, u n l e s s she
h a s by h e r conduct f o r f e i t e d t h a t r i g h t , t h a t i s , t h a t
i t be made t o appear t h a t t h e mother i s u n f i t o r i n -
competent t o t a k e charge o f i t , o r u n l e s s t h e w e l f a r e
of t h e c h i l d f o r some s p e c i a l o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y reason
demands a d i f f e r e n t d i s p o s i t i o n . I I
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f
mother was u n f i t t o have custody of t h e s e c h i l d r e n , n e i t h e r was any
evidence i n t r o d u c e d s u g g e s t i n g a " s p e c i a l o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y reason"
f o r n o t f i n d i n g h e r a f i t person t o have custody.
The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d w i t h d i r e c t i o n s
t o award t h e custody of t h e two minor c h i l d r e n t o p l a i n t i f f mother,
s u b j e c t t o such v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s f o r t h e f a t h e r a s t h e c o u r t may
s e e a s f i t and proper.
4 *
- -
4
/f
Justice _
7-
r
i
W e Concur:
Chi* Justice
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e m - - - - - - -
Justices.
Mr. J u s t i c e Haswell s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g .
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t b u t n o t i n a l l t h a t i s s a i d i n
t h e foregoing opinion.
S p e c i f i c a l l y I do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e
t r i a l c o u r t i n a l l c a s e s s h o u l d r u l e on t h e f i t n e s s o f b o t h
p a r e n t s f o r c u s t o d y of c h i l d r e n o f t e n d e r y e a r s . I n many c a s e s ,
t h e m o t h e r ' s c l a i m t o c u s t o d y of a s m a l l c h i l d w i l l p r e v a i l
i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e f i t n e s s o r u n f i t n e s s of t h e f a t h e r . To re-
q u i r e a f i n d i n g of u n f i t n e s s o f t h e f a t h e r i n s u c h a c a s e a d v e r s e l y
a f f e c t s payment of c h i l d s u p p o r t , e x e r c i s e o f v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s ,
and r e l a t e d c o n f l i c t s - - a l l without purpose.
Justice