No. 13493
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
I N RE T E CUSTODY O SUZANNE DAWN
H F
DALLENGER and CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL
DALLENGER
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court 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 ,
Honorable R . D . M c P h i l l i p s , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
S c o t t , L i n n e l l , N e i l l & Newhall, G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
Kenneth R. N e i l l a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg & M a t t e u c c i , G r e a t F a l l s ,
Montana
A r t h u r G . M a t t e u c c i a p p e a r e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
J o h n Albe a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Submitted: March 1 5 , 1977
Decided :
AUG 2 2 1977
M r . 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 of t h e
Court.
This i s a n appeal from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
Cascade County, g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r modif i c a -
t i o n of t h e decree a s t o custody of t h e p a r t i e s ' two c h i l d r e n .
Appellant Ronald Dallenger was awarded custody of t h e
c h i l d r e n , Suzanne and C h r i s t o p h e r , pursuant t o a decree of
divorce e n t e r e d May 24, 1974. Appellant h a s s i n c e remarried
and p r e s e n t l y l i v e s i n Great F a l l s , Montana. Respondent, Martha
Herren, a l s o i s remarried and r e s i d e s i n F l o r i d a . On February
20, 1976, respondent f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f custody.
She f i l e d a n amended p e t i t i o n t o t h e same e f f e c t on March 25, 1976.
The m a t t e r was r e f e r r e d t o t h e c o u r t of c o n c i l i a t i o n f o r i n v e s t i -
g a t i o n and h e a r i n g was h e l d June 30, 1976, on t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n
issue. After the hearing t h e d i s t r i c t court granted respondent's
p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n and awarded custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o
her. The c o u r t expressed t h e s t a n d a r d s i t employed i n t h e s e
f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s :
"* * * Without going i n t o t h e n a t u r e and p a r t i c u l a r s
of a l l such testimony, t h e Court f i n d s a s a m a t t e r of
f a c t , t h a t Suzanne's and C h r i s t o p h e r ' s p h y s i c a l , mental,
moral and emotional h e a l t h would be b e s t served i f
Herren had t h e c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l of s a i d c h i l d r e n
s u b j e c t t o reasonable r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n by Dallenger
a t reasonable times, p l a c e s and i n t e r v a l s a s f u l l y s e t
f o r t h i n t h e o r d e r h e r e i n . A change i n custody would
serve said c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t .
"Martha F. Herren (Dallenger) has shown by a preponderance
of t h e evidence introduced h e r e i n t h a t t h e p h y s i c a l , mental,
moral and emotional h e a l t h a r e b e s t served by she a c q u i r i n g
custody of Suzanne and Christopher Dallenger, and t h a t t o
change custody arrangements f o r t h w i t h i s t o t h e environ-
mental b e n e f i t of s a i d c h i l d r e n . "
Appellant urges two s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of e r r o r :
(1) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p p l i e d i n c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d s i n i t s
d e c i s i o n t o change custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o respondent.
(2) That even i f t h e proper s t a n d a r d s were a p p l i e d , t h e
d e c i s i o n was n o t supported by t h e evidence.
W hold t h e f i r s t s p e c i f i c a t i o n of e r r o r r e q u i r e s a r e v e r s a l
e
of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r and new h e a r i n g , t h e r e f o r e we
express no opinion regarding t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e evidence
presented a t the p r i o r hearing.
The a c t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody a r i s e s under t h e
Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, s e c t i o n 48-339, R.C.M. 1947,
i t provides :
" ( 1 ) N motion t o modify a custody d e c r e e may be
o
made e a r l i e r t h a n 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 p e r m i t s 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 en-
vironment 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 .
" ( 2 ) The c o u r t s h a l l n o t modify a p r i o r custody
decree u n l e s s it f i n d s , upon t h e b a s i s of f a c t s t h a t
have a r i s e n s i n c e t h e p r i o r d e c r e e o r t h a t were unknown
t o t h e c o u r t a t t h e time of e n t r y of t h e p r i o r d e c r e e ,
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 h i s c u s t o d i a n , and t h a t t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n i s
n e c e s s a r y t o s e r v e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . I n
applying t h e s e s t a n d a r d s t h e c o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n t h e
c u s t o d i a n appointed pursuant t o t h e p r i o r decree u n l e s s :
"(a) the custodian agrees t o the modification;
" ( b ) t h e c h i l d h a s been i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e family
of t h e p e t i t i o n e r w i t h consent of t h e c u s t o d i a n ; o r
" ( c ) t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment endangers 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 , and t h e
harm l i k e l y t o be caused by a change of environment i s o u t -
weighed. by i t s advantages t o him.
" ( 3 ) Attorney f e e s and c o s t s s h a l l be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t
a p a r t y seeking m o d i f i c a t i o n i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e
m o d i f i c a t i o n a c t i o n i s v e x a t i o u s and c o n s t i t u t e s harassment. I f
Section 48-339 r e q u i r e s a showing of a change i n circum-
s t a n c e s and t h a t modification i s necessary t o serve 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 . The s t a t u t e i s s p e c i f i c , however,
i n pointing out how t h e s e standards a r e t o be applied. No
change i n custody may be made unless subsections ( a ) , (b) , o r
( c ) under s e c t i o n 48-339(2) a r e s a t i s f i e d . Here only sub-
s e c t i o n 2(c) i s a p p l i c a b l e , and it r e q u i r e s : (1) t h e p h y s i c a l ,
mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h of t h e c h i l d be endangered
i n i t s p r e s e n t environment; and (2) t h e advantages t o t h e
c h i l d of a change i n custody outweigh :the harm l i k e l y t o be
caused by such a change.
This burden put on t h e p a r t y seeking a change i n custody
was developed' i n t e n t i o n a l l y t o f u r t h e r t h e p o l i c y t h a t
custody ought t o be d i f f i c u l t t o change a f t e r a decree i s made.
The Comment of t h e National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform S t a t e Laws, quoted by t h i s Court i n Holm v.i-'Holm,
Mont . , 560 P.2d 905, 908, 34 St.Rep. 118, 121,
s t a t e s i n part:
"Most e x p e r t s who have spoken t o t h e problems of
post-divorce adjustment of c h i l d r e n b e l i e v e t h a t
i n s u r i n g t h e d e c r e e ' s f i n a l i t y i s more important
than determining which parent should be t h e custodian.
See Watson, The Children of Armageddon: Pfoblems
of Custody Following Divorce, 21 Syracuse L.Rev. 55
(1969). This s e c t i o n i s designed t o maximize f i n a l i t y
(and thus a s s u r e c o n t i n u i t y f o r t h e c h i l d ) without
jeopardizing t h e c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t . * * *"
I n l i g h t of these policy considerations i n addition t o
t h e c l e a r language of t h e s t a t u t e , we cannot hold t h e s t a t u t e
i s s a t i s f i e d where t h e c o u r t f i n d s only t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s
of t h e c h i l d r e n would be "best served" by a change i n custody,
and t h a t such a change would be " t o t h e environmental b e n e f i t "
of the children. For t h e c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e t o have j u r i s d i c t i o n
t o modify a custody decree under s e c t i o n 48-339, t h e r e must be
a f i n d i n g of danger t o t h e p h y s i c a l , mental, moral, o r emotional
h e a l t h of t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r p r e s e n t environment, and a
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e harm l i k e l y t o be caused by such a change i s
outweighed by i t s advantages t o them. Here, t h e r e simply were
no such f i n d i n g s .
Respondent argues t h e u l t i m a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n under t h e
s t a t u t e i s s t i l l 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 and a f i n d i n g
t o t h a t e f f e c t n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e s a f i n d i n g t h a t one of t h e
s u b s e c t i o n s t o s e c t i o n 48-339(2) i s s a t i s f i e d . W agree the
e
f i n a l d e c i s i o n remains t h e t r a d i t i o n a l " b e s t i n t e r e s t s " d e c i s i o n .
Eoss v. L e i f e r , Mont . , 550 P.2d 1309, 33 St.Rep. 528;
Erhardt v. E r h a r d t , - .
Mont -
2 554 P.2d 758, 33 St.Rep. 883.
But t h e s u b s e c t i o n s t o s e c t i o n 48-339(2) a r e 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 s t o m o d i f i c a t i o n which were placed t h e r e t o s e r v e
t h e b a s i c p o l i c y behind t h e e n t i r e s e c t i o n , t h e p o l i c y of
custodial continuity. To allow t h e s e c r u c i a l i s s u e s t o be
resolved merely by r e f e r e n c e s t o 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
would s e r i o u s l y weaken t h e s t a t u t e . W hold t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
e
d i d n o t comply w i t h t h e c o r r e c t s t a t u t o r y s t a n d a r d s s e t o u t i n
s e c t i o n 48-339(2)(c), R.C.M. 1947.
The o r d e r g r a n t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e custody d e c r e e
i s reversed. The c a s e i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r
a new h e a r i n g i n compliance w i t h t h i s opinion.
W e Concur:
i
, I \
Chief Justice