No. 12661
I N T E SUPREME C U T OF T E STATE O MONTANA
H OR H F
1974
DANIEL J. GILMORE,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
RENEE GILMORE, now known a s
RENEE BOEHM,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o5)the F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Peter-W. Meloy , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Smith and Harper, Helena, Montana
Charles A. Smith, 1 1 argued, Helena, Montana
1
For Respondent :
Charles E. P e t a j a argued, Helena, Montana
Submitted: September 1 7 , 1974
Decided : C
j ~ -8
h 1 ,I
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an a p p e a l from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis
and C l a r k County, awarding custody o f t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e
f a t h e r , Daniel J . Gilmore, who brought t h e a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t t o a f f i r m an o r d e r by a North Dakota d i s t r i c t c o u r t awarding
him custody o f t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n . The North Dakota c o u r t
a l s o awarded t h e f a t h e r c h i l d support from t h e mother. Both p a r t i e s
and t h e North Dakota Court have consented t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of
t h e Montana c o u r t
The mother appealed t h e o r d e r o f t h e Lewis and Clark County
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n e d r e q u e s t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e
of t h e custody award t~ g r a n t h e r custody o f h e r t h r e e minor
c h i l d r e n , Robert, B r e t t , and Brandie, and r e a s o n a b l e c h i l d support.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied t h e mother's c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n and h e l d
t h e f a t h e r was e n t i t l e d t o c o n t i n u e having custody and c o n t r o l of
t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n .
Appellant and respondent were married f o r s i x y e a r s and t h e
t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n were t h e i s s u e of t h a t marriage. T h e i r ages
a r e 7 , 5 , and 3 . The p a r t i e s were divorced on June 19, 1 9 7 2 , i n
~ i s m a r c k ,North Dakota, a t which time t h e I?orth Dakota c o u r t
awarded t h e custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r . The f a t h e r now
works a t t h e Helena X-G Men's S t o r e , e a r n i n g $900 p e r month p l u s
bonuses. He works f o u r days a week from 9:30 a.m. t o 9:00 p.m.,
and on Saturdays from 9:30 a.m. t o 6:30 p.m. He h a s a l i c e n s e d day
c a r e c e n t e r t o provide f o r t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e weekdays. On
weekends and n i g h t s o u t , he has a b a b y s i t t e r watch t h e c h i l d r e n .
I n January 1973, t h e mother was r e m a r r i e d t o a 23 y e a r o l d
employee of t h e B i l l i n g s K-Z Men's S t o r e , e a r n i n g $450 p e r month.
A t t h e time of t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n , s h e was planning t o q u i t h e r j o b ;
s h e w a s f o u r months pregnant; and she and h e r husband were i n t h e
process of purchasing a new t h r e e bedroom mobile home.
A t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e , t h e mother agreed t h e f a t h e r should
have custody of t h e c h i l d r e n because she was f i n a n c i a l l y unable t o
c a r e f o r them and, e m o t i o n a l l y , t h e f a t h e r could b e t t e r c a r e f o r t h e
children. The mother now argues t h e r e h a s been a change of circum-
s t a n c e s which w a r r a n t s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e custody d e c r e e . She
a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e she has remarried she now has t h e a b i l i t y t o
provide and g i v e h e r c h i l d r e n t h e c a r e and a t t e n t i o n they need on a
f u l l time b a s i s ; t h a t she i s r e s t o r e d i n emotional h e a l t h ; and, t h e
c h i l d r e n now need t h e mother's a t t e n t i o n and c a r e and a normal
home l i f e r a t h e r than t h e a t t e n t i o n and c a r e "which has been d e l e -
g a t e d t o s t r a n g e r s on a p e r diem b a s i s . " The mother f u r t h e r a r g u e s
t h a t 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 demand t h e i r custody be
changed t o t h e i r mother and c i t e s s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947, i n
support o f h e r p o s i t i o n :
I1
2. A s between p a r e n t s a d v e r s e l y c l a i m i n g the
custody o r g u a r d i a n s h i p , n e i t h e r p a r e n t i s en-
t i t l e d t o i t a s of r i g h t ; but o t h e r t h i n g s being
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 ** *. "
Appellant mother makes a s t r o n g argument c i t i n g a l l t h e
accepted c a s e s on t h e s u b j e c t of change of c o n d i t i o n s and w e l f a r e
and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of c h i l d r e n and then concludes t h a t t h e r e i s
a p r i o r i t y of some kind between t h e two expressed i n Bayers v. Bayers,
129 Mont. 1, 6, 281 P.2d 506:
11 1
I n custody c a s e s , t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e , para-
mount t o a l l o t h e r s , i s t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s
of t h e c h i l d . I n no way i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h i s r u l e i s
a n o t h e r , e q u a l l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d , t h a t once a c o u r t
has decreed i t t h e r e may be no change i n t h e c h i l d ' s
custody except where adequate cause t h e r e f o r a r i s e s o u t
o f changed c o n d i t i o n s . This p r i n c i p l e i s based on t h e
i d e a n o t only t h a t t h e s t a b i l i t y of t h e home l i f e of
t h e c h i l d r e n i s an important and v i t a l f a c t o r , b u t a l s o
t h a t t h e t u r m o i l of l i t i g a t i o n must somewhere end."'
A p p e l l a n t ' s c i t a t i o n s a r e p e r f e c t l y v a l i d and e x p r e s s t h e doc-
t r i n e s involved b u t they b e a r no p r i o r i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p , o n l y a
qualifying relation. There must be a change of circumstances o r
c o n d i t i o n s from t h e ci.rcumstances t h a t e x i s t e d a t t h e time of t h e
o r i g i n a l d e c r e e and upon which t h e d e c r e e was based under s e c t i o n
91-4515, R.C.M 1947, which provides t h a t i n awarding t h e custody
of minor c h i l d r e n t h e c o u r t i s t o be guided:
"By what appears t o be f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t-he
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 ** *.'I
The claimed change i n c o n d i t i o n s o r circumstances can be judged on
no l e s s e r standard.
Appellant q u a r r e l s w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s X I and X I I ,
which fFnd no change o f circumstances from June 19, 1972, i n
Bismarck, North Dakota, t o t h e p r e s e n t was demonstrated t 2 the court.
Appellant c i t e s s e v e r a l c a s e s and r e l i e s on McCullough v. McCullough,
159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 118?, as an almost i d e n t i c a l fact
s i t u a t i o n where t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found a change of circumstances
and t h i s Court a f f i r m e d . F i r s t , the cases a r e distinguishable
on t h e f a c t s and t h e q u a l i t y of t h e evidence. Second, t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t i n McCullough found a change of circumstances on t h e e v i -
dence p r e s e n t e d i n t h a t c a s e and when appealed i t was n o t our
province t o review t h e r e c o r d of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o determine i f we
agreed w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n s reached, i f supported by c r e d i b l e
evidence. W must i n d u l g e i n t h e presumption t h e judgment o f t h e
e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s t h e r e
i s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e evidence a g a i n s t i t , when viewed
i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . Stromberg
I
and Brown v. Seaton Ranch Co., 160 Mont. 293, 502 P.2d 41.
The i n s t a n t c a s e came t o t h i s Court f o r review upon a d e n i a l of
a change of circumstances and we must g r a n t t h e s e same presumptions
and when s o doing f i n d c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t .
The f a c t s show t h e c h i l d r e n , a t t h e time of t h i s a c t i o n , had
l i v e d w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r f o r a year. A l l persons who t e s t i f i e d agreed
t h e f a t h e r was a f i t person and agreed he c a r e d f o r t h e c h i l d r e n w e l l .
The mother s t i p u l a t e d t h e f a t h e r was a f i t person t o c a r e f o r t h e
children. The s o c i a l worker, who t e s t i f i e d a s an e x p e r t w i t n e s s ,
stated:
"Although t h e mother may be very capable of c a r i n g f o r
the children, I believe that t o subject the children t o
separation again i s not 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 r e n e s p e c i a l l y i f one i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e very s a t i s -
f a c t o r y s i t u a t i o n t h e y a r e now experiencing. 11
I n McCullough and a g a i n i n t h e most r e c e n t d e c i s i o n concerning
t h i s problem, I n r e Adoption of B i e r y , Mnn t , , 522 P.2d.
1377, 1378, 3 1 St.Rep. 461, t h i s Court s t a t e d :
"1n a l l such c a s e s t h e c r u c i a l f a c t ~ r s t h e c h i l d ' s
i
w e l f a r e , both m a t e r i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l , c o n s i d e r i n g
i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e t i e s of a f f e c t i o n t h e c h i l d has
formed and t h e consequences of b r e a k i n g t h o s e t i e s , * **
"What i s , o r what i s n o t 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 depends upon t h e f a c t s and circumstances of each
c a s e . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d e c i d i n g custody i s a
d e l i c a t e one which i s lodged w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
The judge h e a r i n g o r a l testimony i n such a c o n t r o v e r s y h a s
a s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining t h e same, and h i s
d e c i s i o n ought n o t t~ be d i s t u r b e d except upon a c l e a r
showing o f abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] "
W f i n d no abuse of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n .
e The judg-
t04 Concur:
'i
Chief J u s t i c e
Justices.