No. 1.3315
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1976
STATE OF MONTANA, ex r e l . K R L MUIRHEAD,
AOA
Rela t o r ,
THE DISrIRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL
DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, I N AND
F F
FOR THE COUNTY OF LEWIS AND CLARK, AND THE
HON. PETER G. MELOY, J U D G E PRESIDING,
Respondents.
O K l G l N A L PKOCEEDING :
Counsel of Record :
F o r Rela t o r :
Td. W i l l i a m L e a p h a r t a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
For Respondents:
Smith, Smith and S e w e l l , Helena, Montana
R o b e r t J . Sewell a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
S u b m i t t e d : A p r i l 8, 1976
Decided :
y ~ a y6 1976
Filed: '--
' b
%I. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
;:he C o u r t .
R e l a t o r p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n
gr o r h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t , t o r e c o v e r t h e c u s t o d y o f t h r e e minor
children. Adversary h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s -
d i c t i o n was s e t by t h e Court t o b e h e a r d A p r i l 8 , 1976. Briefs
were f i l e d , t h e m a t t e r h e a r d , and t a k e n under advisement by t h e
Court.
An a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was b r o u g h t by R o b e r t
Xuirhead t o modify a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e between Karola V i r g i n i a
Yiuirhead and Robert J a c k Muirhead, g r a n t e d by t h e S u p e r i o r Court
o f t h e s t a t e o f Washington, K i t s a p County, November 3 , 1972.
Karola was g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n o f t h e
n a r t i e s and Robert was o r d e r e d t o pay $300 p e r month f o r t h e
support of t h e c h i l d r e n . Robert was g i v e n r e a s o n a b l e r i g h t s of
v i s i t a t i o n a t p r o p e r t i m e s and p l a c e s . Robert l e f t t h e s t a t e of
' d a s h i n g t o n , and e s t a b l i s h e d a home i n H e l e n a , Montana.
R o b e r t , w h i l e v i s i t i n g t h e minor c h i l d r e n on o r a b o u t
iugust 2 8 , 1975, a t ~ a r o l a ' shome i n Bremerton, Washington,
d l l e g e d h e observed (1) t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n i n
which t h e minor c h i l d r e n were l o c a t e d had s e r i o u s l y d e t e r i o r a t e d ,
, 2 ) t h e o n l y c l e a n c l o t h e s t h e y had were t h o s e t h e y were w e a r i n g
2t t h e t i m e , (3) t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were p h y s i c a l l y u n c l e a n ,
i4j t h e household environment was f i l t h y , (5) t h a t Karola had
g i v e n b i r t h t o a n o t h e r c h i l d o u t o f wedlock and t h e n i n e y e a r
~ l N i c k i L o r i , was i n c h a r g e o f a l l t h e c h i l d r e n w h i l e K a r o l a
d
dorked a s a c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s from 5:00 p.m. t o 2:00 a.m., (6) none
, t h e c h i l d r e n were p r o p e r l y f e d , and ( 7 ) t h e f a m i l y was a p p a r e n t l y
i
i-11 d e s p e r a t e f i s c a l n e e d , i n d i c a t i n g a f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t of
v a r o l a t o p r o p e r l y u t i l i z e t h e s u p p o r t money f u r n i s h e d by him.
Yubert a l l e g e d t h a t a f t e r s e e i n g t h i s s i t u a t i o n , he t o o k t h e c h i l d r e n
dild b r o u g h t them t o Helena, Montana, t o h i s new home.
3n S c t o b e r 5 , 1-975, 3 o b e r t p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
o f Lewis and C l a r k County t h a t he b e g r a n t e d t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y
and c o n t r o l of t h e minor c h i l d r e n . A copy o f t h a t p e t i t i o n was
s e n t t o Karola by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l and s h e a p p e a r e d s p e c i a l l y ,
c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e p e t i t i o n .
Temporary c u s t o d y was g r a n t e d by t h e Montana c o u r t t o Robert
on October 2 , 1975; on J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1976, Judge Robert W. Winsor
o f t h e S u p e r i o r Court o f t h e S t a t e o f Washington, King County,
h e l d a h e a r i n g and i s s u e d an o r d e r t o show c a u s e , found Robert i n
contempt o f c o u r t f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n s
o f t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e and o r d e r e d R o b e r t t o t a k e immediate
s t e p s t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d r e n t o Karola.
T h e r e a f t e r , on March 3 , 1976, Judge Meloy o f t h e d i s t r i c t
~ o u r t ,Lewis and C l a r k County, s t a t e o f Montana, d e n i e d ~ a r o l a ' s
n o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n and h e l d t h a t h i s
c o u r t had " j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r b o t h t h e p e r s o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t and o f
II
the subject matter.
Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d by t h e p e t i t i o n :
1. Whether o r n o t t h e Montana d i s t r i c t c o u r t must have
i-n Dersonam j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e mother and t h e l e g a l c u s t o d i a n
2f t h e minor c h i l d r e n b e f o r e t h a t c o u r t c a n o r d e r t h e m o t h e r ' s
r i g h t t o c u s t o d y t e r m i n a t e d and t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e f a t h e r ?
2. Whether o r n o t r e l a t o r h a s s u f f i c i e n t "minimum c o n t a c t s "
with zhe s t a t e of Montana t o come w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f
~ o n t a n a ' slong arm s t a t u t e , Rule 4 , M.R.Civ.P.?
Where, a s h e r e , t h e c l a i m i s t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n i s c o n f e r r e d
b y p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e o f t h e c h i l d , we must avoid a c c e p t i n g t h o s e
Il
Ldses where c u s t o d y was o b t a i n e d by s e i z e and run".
T h i s Court i n C a r r o l l v. White, 1 5 1 Mont. 332, 335, 443 P.2d
' - 3 , similar t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a f t e r f i r s t d i s c u s s i n g s e v e r a l
3 d r l i . e ~c u s ~ o d yc a s e s , h e l d :
'I f
The mother, who was awarded t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e
c h i l d r e n , had t h e r i g h t t o f i x t h e i r r e s i d e n c e . * 9: ;k
And t h e m o t h e r ' s r e s i d e n c e d e t e r m i n e s t h a t o f t h e
c h i l d r e n . ik 9~ C e r t a i n l y t h e y were r e s i d e n t s o f t h e
S t a t e o f Oregon, when t h e Oregon c o u r t awarded t h e
c u s t o d y t o t h e i r mother. 9 9 : : *The Oregon c o u r t had
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o decree t h e custody of t h e c h i l d r e n i n
t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n . That d e c r e e i s e n t i t l e d t o f u l l
f a i t h and c r e d i t h e r e . * ;
k tb Any q u e s t i o n o f t h e
f i t n e s s of t h e mother t o have t h e c a r e and c u s t o d y o f
t h e c h i l d r e n and h e r claimed abandonment o f them s h o u l d
have been b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e Oregon c o u r t
b e f o r e t h e award o f c u s t o d y was made. 1 1 1
? i o n t a n a l s long-arm s t a t u t e , Rule 4 , M.R.Civ.P., sets forth
II
c h o s e p e r s o n s and c o r p o r a t i o n s who a r e subject" t o the juris-
d i c t i o n o f Montana c o u r t s . The r u l e r e a d s :
JURISDICTION PERSONS.
(1) S u b j e c t t o J u r i s d i c t i o n . A 1 1 p e r s o n s w i t h i n
'he s t a t e o f Montana a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
LJ£ t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e . I n a d d i t i o n , any p e r s o n
Is s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s of t h i s
s t a t e a s t o any c l a i m f o r r e l i e f a r i s i n g from t h e d o i n g
$ e r s o n a l l y , t h r o u g h an employee, o r t h r o u g h a n a g e n t ,
.3f any of t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t s :
( a ) t h e t r a n s a c t i o n of any b u s i n e s s w i t h i n
this state;
jb) t h e commission o f any a c t which r e s u l t s i n
accrual within t h e s t a t e of a t o r t action;
,c) t h e ownership, u s e o r p o s s e s s i o n o f any p r o p e r t y ,
dr o f any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , s i t u a t e d w i t h i n
this state;
) c o n t r a c t i n g t o i n s u r e any p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y o r
r i s k located within t h i s s t a t e a t the t i m e of
contracting;
;e; e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r s e r v i c e s t o be
r e n d e r e d o r f o r m a t e r i a l s t o be f u r n i s h e d i n
t h i s s t a t e by such p e r s o n ; o r
,f) a c ~ i n g s d i r e c t o r , manager, t r u s t e e , o r o t h e r
a
o f f i c e r o f any c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h e
laws o f , o r having i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s
within t h i s s t a t e , o r a s executor o r administrator
d f any e s t a t e w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e . I I
RelaLur ~ O C S n o t f i t w i t h i n any o f t h e enumerated
I1
:riteria. She h a s no c o n t a c t s " w i t h t h e s t a t e o f Hontana which
. ~ u u l d a r r a n i s u b j e c t i n g h e r t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e liontana
w
courts. Any a t t e m p t by Montana t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r
: < a r o l a Muirhead would b e i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e of
,:he F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n .
R e l a t o r i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e long-arm s t a t u t e o f t h e s t a t e
of Montana and t h u s t h e Montana c o u r t cannot o b t a i n i n personam
j u r i s d i c t i o n over h e r . Any custody d e c r e e rendered by t h e
Montana c o u r t would n o t be e n t i t l e d t o f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t
and t h u s t h e i n t e r s t a t e custody b a t t l e would c o n t i n u e and what-
e v e r chance t h e c h i l d r e n have f o r s t a b i l i t y and happiness would
be l o s t amidst t h e d i n of warring p a r e n t s .
It i s t h e s t a t e of Washington which has t h e c o n t a c t s
w i t h t h e p a r t i e s j u s t i f y i n g an e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n . Washing-
ton i s t h e s i t u s of t h e marriage a s w e l l a s t h e d i v o r c e and
i s t h e l e g a l domicile of r e l a t o r and t h u s t h e c h i l d r e n of which
s h e has l e g a l custody.
There i s p r e s e n t l y a contempt proceeding i n p r o g r e s s i n
t h e s t a t e of Washington concerning t h e custody of t h e Muirhead
children. A show cause h e a r i n g was h e l d i n S e a t t l e on January 12,
1976 a t which Robert .Mu'irZiead was h e l d i n contempt of c o u r t
f o r r e f u s a l t o r e t u r n custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o r e l a t o r and he
was f u r t h e r ordered t o t a k e immediate s t e p s t o s o r e t u r n custody
of t h e c h i l d r e n . The m a t t e r of a p p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n s f o r Robert
Muirhead's contempt was continued u n t i l such time a s Robert
Pfuirhead i s brought b e f o r e t h e Washington Court. I t was f u r t h e r
ordered t h a t a copy of t h e Washington o r d e r be s e n t t o t h e Hon.
Judge Meloy of t h e Montana d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Equity demands t h e
Montana d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e f e r t o t h e Washington c o u r t f o r t h e
reason t h a t Robert Muirhead does n o t have "clean hands", i.e.,
he has p e t i t i o n e d i n Montana f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a CJashington
d e c r e e , which d e c r e e he i s p r e s e n t l y v i o l a t i n g . Brown v. Brown,
105 Ariz. 273, 463 P.2d 71'; S t a t e ex r e l . G l a s i e r v. G l a s i e r ,
272 Minn. 62, 137 N.W.2d 549.
I n h i s c h a p t e r on Marriage, Divorce, and Custody, p. 198,
i n h i s "Commentary on t h e C o n f l i c t of Laws!' (1971), P r o f e s s o r
R u s s e l l J. Weintraub of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, poses t h i s
q u e s t i o n and answer:
It
How can we end t h e d i s g r a c e f u l i n t e r s t a t e custody
b a t t l e s t h a t r a g e about u s w i t h c h i l d r e n a s t h e
weapons? JC J JC What i s needed i s t h a t c o u r t s v o l u n t a r i l y
i
d e s i s t from e n t e r t a i n i n g a p e t i t i o n t o modify a s i s t e r -
s t a t e custody d e c r e e when t h a t d e c r e e was rendered by
a c o u r t t h a t had s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e p a r t i e s
t o r e a c h an i n t e l l i g e n t d e c i s i o n , when t h a t o t h e r c o u r t
s t i l l has t h e s e c o n t a c t s s o t h a t i t could make an
informed d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e r e q u e s t f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n ,
and when t h e r e i s no compelling r e a s o n , such a s imminent
t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e harm t o t h e c h i l d , why t h e p a r t i e s
should n o t be r e m i t t e d t o t h a t o t h e r s t a t e f o r d e c i s i o n
on t h e p e t i t i o n t o amend t h e o u t s t a n d i n g decree. I I
R e l a t o r submits t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s ~ o b e r t ' s
p e t i t i o n f o r l a c k of i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n over r e l a t o r and/or
d e f e r t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Washington c o u r t , because:
1. ~ o n t a n a ' slong-arm s t a t u t e does n o t encompass a
person i n r e l a t o r ' s s i t u a t i o n ;
2. The s t a t e of Washington i s t h e s i t u s of t h e marriage
and t h e d i v o r c e between t h e p a r t i e s and i s t h e d o m i c i l e of
r e l a t o r a s well a s the children;
3. Robert i s b e f o r e t h e Montana c o u r t w i t h "unclean
hands", i.e., he i s p e t i t i o n i n g t o modify a d e c r e e which he i n
t u r n i s v i o l a t i n g ; and
4. Robert Muirhead has s u f f i c i e n t "contacts" w i t h t h e
s t a t e of Washington t o b e s u b j e c t t o t h a t s t a t e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n .
F u r t h e r t h e r e i s p r e s e n t l y pending i n t h e s t a t e o f Washington
a contempt proceeding i n which he h a s been p e r s o n a l l y served and
ordered t o r e t u r n custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o r e l a t o r .
I n view of t h e f a c t t h e c h i l d r e n h e r e involved a r e now
i n school and have b u t a month t o go t o complete t h e f u l l y e a r ,
t h i s Court d i r e c t s t h e f a t h e r Robert Muirhead, t o r e t u r n t h e
c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r mother i n Washington immediately a f t e r t h e
school y e a r ends.
I f t h e r e be any q u e s t i o n o f p e t i t i o n e r K a r o l a ' s f i t n e s s ,
t h a t i s f o r t h e c o u r t i n t h e s t a t e o f Washington t o d e c i d e , f o r
t h e r e i s where j u r i s d i c t i o n l i e s .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d .
//
Chief Justice
-
-
Justices.
Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell specially concurring:
I concur in the result based. on lack of subjec~macter
jurisdiction.
In my view, the Washington custody award was controlling
UriilL aodified or superseded by the Washington court. Carroll v.
White, 151 Mont. 332, 443 P.2d 13. In Carroll, as here, the
Washington court made a valid custody award involving children
and parents who were Washington domiciliaries. The custody award in
both cases was entitled to full faith and credit in 14ontana.
United States Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 1; Act of June 25, 1948, 62
Stat. 947.
In this case the Washington custody award was violated
by the father, then a Montana domiciliary, when he removed the
children from their mother's custody in Washington and brought them
to Montana. Such unauthorized removal in violation of an existing
valid custody award did not vest jurisdiction in the Montana
courts to readjudicate custody based on changed circumstances.
State ex rel. Nipp v. District Court, 46 Mont. 425, 128 P. 590.
As I see it, neither ~ontana's "long arm statute1' (Rule
4( 8 ) (I), M. R. Civ. P.) nor the 'minimum contactsr'test is germane to
determining the jurisdiction of Montana courts in interstate custody
II
cases involving seize & run" violations of valid custody orders of
sister states.
Justice.
I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
H F F
STATE O MONTANA e x r e l . K R L
F AOA
MUIRHEAD ,
Relator,
VS.
THE DISTRICT COURT O T E FIRST
F H
JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE
F
O MONTANA, I N AND F R T E
F O H
COUNTY O LEWIS AND CLARK, AND
F CLERK OF S ~ P R E M ECOURT
STATE OF rdCSJT6lrtlA
-
THE HONORABLE PETER G. MELOY, J U D G E
PRESIDING,
Respondents.
O D R ON PETITION F R REHEARING
R E O
On p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e
o p i n i o n f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e Uniform M a r r i a g e and D i v o r c e A c t ,
s e c t i o n s 48-301 t h r o u g h 48-341, R.C.M. 1947, which became e f f e c -
t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1976, and t h a t s a i d Act a p p l i e d t o a l l p r o c e e d -
i n g s p e n d i n g on t h a t d a t e . Appellant f u r t h e r argues t h a t s e c t i o n
48-331, R.C.M. 1947, r e l a t i n g t o j u r i s d i c t i o n was n o t a p p l i e d o r
d i s t i n g u i s h e d by t h e C o u r t i n i t s d e c i s i o n and t h a t t h e f a i l u r e
t o do s o c o u l d c a u s e c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n f u s i o n i n t h e l a w .
S e c t i o n 48-331, R.C.M. 1947 p r o v i d e s :
"48-331. Jurisdiction--commencement o f p r o c e e d i n g s .
(1) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e c o m p e t e n t t o d e c i d e
d h i l d c u s t o d y matters h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a
c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n by i n i t i a l o r m o d i f i -
cation decree i f :
"(a) this state
"(i) i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d a t t h e t i m e o f
commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , o r
" ( i i ) had been t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e w i t h i n s i x
( 6 ) months b e f o r e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g
and t h e c h i l d i s a b s e n t from t h i s s t a t e b e c a u s e
o f h i s removal o r r e t e n t i o n by a p e r s o n c l a i m i n g
h i s c u s t o d y o r f o r o t h e r r e a s o n , and a p a r e n t o r
person a c t i n g a s parent continues t o l i v e i n
this state; or
" ( b ) it i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d
t h a t a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e assume j u r i s d i c t i o n
because
" ( i ) t h e c h i l d and h i s p a r e n t s , o r t h e c h i l d
and a t l e a s t o n e c o n t e s t a n t , have a s i g n i f i c a n t
c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s s t a t e , and
" ( i i ) t h e r e i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s s t a t e substan-
t i a l evidence concerning t h e c h i l d ' s present o r
f u t u r e c a r e , p r o t e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , and p e r s o n a l
relationships; o r
" ( c ) the child is physically present i n t h i s
s t a t e and
" ( i )h a s been abandoned o r
" ( i i ) i s n e c e s s a r y i n a n emergency t o p r o t e c t
it
him b e c a u s e he h a s been s u b j e c t e d t o o r t h r e a t e n e d
w i t h mistreatment o r abuse o r i s neglected o r
dependent; o r
" ( d ) ( i )no o t h e r s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n under
p r e r e q u i s i t e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n accordance w i t h
paragraphs ( a ) , ( b ) , o r ( c ) , o r another s t a t e has
d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e ground
t h a t t h i s s t a t e i s t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e forum t o
d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , and
"(ii) it i s i n h i s b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e c o u r t
assume j u r i s d i c t i o n .
" ( 2 ) Except under p a r a g r a p h s ( c ) and ( d ) of sub-
s e c t i o n ( l ) ,p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e i n t h i s s t a t e o f
t h e c h i l d , o r o f t h e c h i l d and o n e of t h e c o n t e s -
t a n t s , i s not alone s u f f i c i e n t t o confer juris-
d i c t i o n on a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e t o make a c h i l d
custody determination.
" ( 3 ) P h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e of t h e c h i l d , w h i l e d e s i r -
able, i s not prerequisite f o r jurisdiction t o
determine h i s custody.
" ( 4 ) A c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g i s commenced i n
the d i s t r i c t court:
" (a) by a p a r e n t , by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n
" ( i ) f o r dissolution o r legal separation; o r
permanently r e s i d e n t o r found; o r
"(b) by a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n a p a r e n t , by f i l i n g a
p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d i n t h e c o u n t y
i n which he i s permanently r e s i d e n t o r found, b u t
o n l y i f he i s n o t i n t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f one
of h i s parents.
" ( 5 ) N o t i c e of a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l
be given to the child's parent, guardian, and
custodian, who may appear, be heard, and file a
responsive pleading. The court, upon a showing
of good cause, may permit intervention of other
interested parties. "
We find no conflict in our opinion with the above set
forth law. Our opinion requires the service of process as
provided for by Rule 41, M.R.Civ.P. of the notice provided for
in subse~tion(5~.
This requirement of "notice" under section
48-331, R.C.M. 1947, is consistent with the requirement of
service of process under Rule 4(b) since the purpose of serving
a summons is to give notice.
The purpose of serving a summons is to give notice to
the defendant and thereby afford him an opportunity to defend
himself or his property--an essential of due process.
This section has been interpreted by this Court con-
sistently with Rule 4(b) just as any other statute which requires
due process of law, i.e., notice and a hearing. To argue as
appellant does here that such service of process is only within
the State of Montana, is error. Rule 4 is a "long-arm statute"
authorizing service on all persons subject to jurisdiction re-
gardless of whether or not those persons are within the State of
Montana. Such a holding is consistent with the United States
Supreme Court holding in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 97 L.ed
1221, 73 S.Ct. 840, and WiLliams v. Williams, 44 Ohio St.2d 28,
336 N.E.2d 426, that a court may not terminate a parent's custody
without having in personum jurisdiction over the parent.
DATED this 2'y
~d
"a of June, 1976.
Justice
Justices
I
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell:
I n view o f t h e f o r e g o i n g I hereby withdraw t h e f i n a l
p a r a g r a p h o f my s p e c i a l c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n .
Justice