No. 13232
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
197 6
EMIL W. ERHARDT,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
JOANNE S. ERHARDT,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t ,
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable W, W, L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Berg, Angel, Andri.010 & Morgan, Bozeman, Montana
C h a r l e s F. Angel a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
F o r Respondent :
W i l l i a m E , G i l b e r t a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana
Submitted: September 2 , 1976
Decided: SEP 2 1 lgl~
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.
This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
G a l l a t i n County, g r a n t i n g a change of c u s t o d y of two minor boys
from t h e mother t o t h e f a t h e r following t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r
m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e custody p r o v i s i o n s of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e .
The d e t e r m i n a t i v e i s s u e i s whether s u f f i c i e n t evidence was
p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o show a
m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances w a r r a n t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e
divorce decree. W h o l d t h e r e was n o t .
e
The f a t h e r E m i l W . E r h a r d t and mother JoAnne S . E r h a r d t
were d i v o r c e d A p r i l 1 4 , 1975. They agreed a t t h a t time t h a t
JoAnne would r e c e i v e custody of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , E r i k W . , age s i x ;
and T i l n e y J . , age seven. Upon f i n d i n g t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s were
f i t and proper t o have c u s t o d y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n c o r p o r a t e d
t h e agreement w i t h t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e and o r d e r e d t h a t JoAnne
have custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t e n months each y e a r and E m i l two
months each y e a r . E m i l , however, was allowed t o keep p h y s i c a l
custody of t h e c h i l d r e n i n Bozeman u n t i l J u l y 15, 1975, t o g i v e
JoAnne time t o g e t a job and e s t a b l i s h a home f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n
California. JoAnne subsequently o b t a i n e d work a s an e x e c u t i v e
s e c r e t a r y and r e n t e d an apartment l a r g e enough t o accomodate
the children. On J u l y 9 , 1975, E m i l f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g ,
m o d i f i c a t i o n of the d i v o r c e d e c r e e t o o b t a i n permanent custody
of t h e c h i l d r e n . He r e f u s e d t o d e l i v e r t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r
mother on J u l y 15, 1975. The p e t i t i o n was h e a r d August 1, 1975 and
E m i l was g i v e n permanent custody s u b j e c t t o JoAnne's r i g h t t o have
t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e Christmas h o l i d a y s and f o r t h i r t y days each
summer. JoAnne t h e n f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l .
This Court r e c e n t l y s e t f o r t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w i n Foss v .
Leifer , Mont . , 550 P.2d 1309, 1311, 33 St.Rep. 528,
''In Montana i t h a s been f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s
j u r i s d i c t i o n i n m a t t e r s of custody i s of a c o n t i n u i n g
n a t u r e . Barbour v. Barbour, 134 Mont. 317, 330 P.2d 1093;
Libra v. L i b r a , 154 Mont. 222, 462 P.2d 178. T h i s concept
a l s o c o n t r o l s under t h e r e c e n t l y enacted Uniform Marriage
and Divorce Act, s e c t i o n 48-339, R.C.M. 1947, which c l e a r l y
provides d i s t r i c t c o u r t s may n o t e x e r c i s e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power
t o modify a p r i o r custody decree u n l e s s two b a s i c elements
a r e shown t o e x i s t : 1 ) new f a c t s o r f a c t s unknown t o t h e
c o u r t a t t h e time t h e i n i t i a l decree was e n t e r e d demonstrate
t h a t a change h a s occurred i n t h e circumstances of t h e c h i l d
o r t h o s e of h i s c u s t o d i a n ; and 2) t h i s change i s s u f f i c i e n t
t o warrant a m o d i f i c a t i o n i n o r d e r t o promote t h e p a r t i c u l a r
c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . This b a s i c s t a n d a r d was a p p l i e d i n
t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n long b e f o r e t h e enactment of t h e new law,
and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of which law would b e a p p l i c a b l e under
t h e f a c t s presented would have no b e a r i n g on t h e r e s u l t .
J e w e t t v. J e w e t t , 73 Mont. 591, 237 P. 702; Trudgen v. Trud-
gen, 134 Mont. 174, 329 P.2d 225; Simon v. Simon 154 Mont.
193, 461 P.2d 851.
" 9 ~ 9~ * I n reviewing o r d e r s which a f f e c t t h e custody of a
c h i l d , t h i s Court i s mindful t h a t t h e primary duty of
d e c i d i n g t h e proper custody of c h i l d r e n i s t h e t a s k of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Thus, a l l reasonable presumptions a s t o
t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l be made. No
r u l i n g w i l l be d i s t u r b e d absent a c l e a r showing t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n was abused. [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] . "
The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o provide some s t a b i l i t y f o r custody
arrangements i s f u r t h e r emphasized by s e c t i o n 48-339(1), R.C.M.
1947, of t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t , adopted by Montana
i n 1975, which p r o v i d e s :
!I
N motion t o modify a custody decree may be made
o
e a r l i e r than two (2) y e a r s a f t e r i t s d a t e , u n l e s s
t h e c o u r t permits i t t o be made on t h e b a s i s of
a f f i d a v i t s t h a t t h e r e i s reason t o b e l i e v e t h e c h i l d ' s
p r e s e n t environment may endanger s e r i o u s l y h i s p h y s i c a l ,
mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h . "
However, a s i n Foss, i t makes no d i f f e r e n c e h e r e whether t h e
new law o r t h e o l d law c o n t r o l s , f o r b o t h e s t a b l i s h t h a t a
m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody i s an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n u n l e s s premised
upon a change in circumstances "sufficient to endanger the welfare
of the child".
The father contends the stability the life the children have
settled into constitutes the necessary change in circumstances.
Admitting that a change cannot occur in just three and one-half
months, he argues it is the result of the children continuing to
live with him in the same circumstances and home they have known
throughout their lives. He notes the children's friends and
activities are the same as they have always been; the children
have adjusted to the divorce and formed deeper ties with their
father; and the mother has been absent from the home. He concludes
that to send the children to JoAnne in California would result in
a total upheaval of their lives, contrary to their best interests.
JoAnne, on the other hand, argues there has been no change
in circumstances. She alleges the circumstances existing at the
time of the hearing on Emil's petition were exactly those con-
templated when the divorce decree was issued. We agree.
The divorce decree of April 14, 1975, expressly provided
that the father was given temporary custody until July 15, 1975,
for the sole purpose of allowing the mother time to obtain employ-
ment and provide a home for her children in California. Only
three and one-half months elapsed between the divorce decree and
the hearing on Emil's petition for modification. JoAnne obtained
employment in April 1975, and she rented an apartment in July 1975.
She was prepared to receive the children on July 15, 1975, as
previously agreed by the parties and ordered by the district court.
No allegations of unfitness were made by either party during the
hearing on Emil's petition and after investigation the district
court found both parties were fit and proper parents. These facts
do not show a change in circumstances sufficient to endanger the
children. To t h e c o n t r a r y , they show JoAnne d i d e x a c t l y what
she wa.s supposed t o do under t h e terms of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e and
pursuant t o h e r agreement w i t h E m i l .
The evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show a change o f circum-
s t a n c e s t h e r e f o r e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e custody p r o v i s i o n s of
t h e d i v o r c e decree by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was an abuse of d i s c r e -
t i o n and i t s o r d e r awarding custody t o t h e f a t h e r i s s e t a s i d e .
Justice
W Concur:
e
1
4u s t i c e s .
J