No. 13565
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1977
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
ROBERT ISLER,
Petitioner and Respondent,
and
CHRISTINE M. ISLER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District,
Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
William J. Miele argued, Miles City, Montana
For Respondent :
Kenneth R. Wilson argued, Miles City, Montana
Submitted: April 18, 1977
Decided: JUN 2 1 1 7
9z
Filed: JUN 2 2 ]gin
M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea 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 n appeal by , t h e mother from a judgment of t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Rosebud County, awarding custody of t h e p a r t i e s '
two minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r f a t h e r .
C h r i s t i n e and Robert I s l e r were married i n September 1970,
and divorced i n A p r i l 1976. Although t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found
both p a r e n t s f i t and proper persons, i t awarded custody of David,
then f o u r y e a r s o l d , and Douglas, t h e n one y e a r o l d , t o t h e
father. The mother contends t h e award of custody t o t h e f a t h e r
was a n abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
because :
1 ) Evidence a t t r i a l on t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 48-332,
R.C.M. 1947, of t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, favored
t h e mother.
2) The award was erroneously based on t h e r e l a t i v e e a r n i n g
c a p a c i t y of t h e p a r t i e s .
3) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e presumption
i n f a v o r of awarding c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s t o t h e i r mother was
overcome by t h e evidence.
I n determining t h e i s s u e of custody t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a -
t i o n i s t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n and must of n e c e s s i t y be
l e f t l a r g e l y i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The d e c i -
s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i l l n o t be o v e r r u l e d on a p p e a l a b s e n t
a showing of a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . Tweeten v. Tweeten,
Mont . 9 P.2d , 34 St.Rep. 337,339.
S e c t i o n 48-332, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s :
"Best i n t e r e s t of c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l determine
custody i n accordance w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e
c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s
including :
"(1) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d ' s parent o r parents
a s t o h i s custody;
"(2) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d a s t o h i s custodian;
'I ( 3 ) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e
c h i l d with h i s parent o r p a r e n t s , h i s s i b l i n g s , and
any o t h e r person who may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e c h i l d ' s
best interest;
"(4) t h e c h i l d ' s adjustment t o h i s home, school,
and community; and
"(5) t h e mental and physical h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i -
d u a l s involved ."
The f i r s t two f a c t o r s of s e c t i o n 48-332 a r e not h e l p f u l
i n t h i s case. Both p a r e n t s seek custody and t h e c h i l d r e n were
too young a t t h e time'of t r i a l t o express a preference, The
f i f t h f a c t o r a l s o provides l i t t l e guidance. The record i n d i c a t e s
t h a t . b o t h p a r t i e s coped w e l l with t h e s t r a i n of t h i s d i s p u t e and
none of t h e persons involved, including t h e c h i l d r e n , were shown
t o have a physical o r mental problem t h a t would have an e f f e c t
on t h e custody i s s u e .
The t h i r d f a c t o r involves t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n
with t h e i r p a r e n t s and o t h e r s "who may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t 1 '
their best interests. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found both t h e mother
and f a t h e r expressed t h e i r love f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and:
"That both of t h e minor c h i l d r e n of t h e p a r t i e s
a r e h e a l t h y , normal c h i l d r e n t h a t love each o t h e r
and both of t h e i r p a r e n t s , and have b e n e f i t e d from
a healthy home environment . I 1
The record supports these findings. However, t h e mother
t e s t i f i e d she intended t o move t o t h e San Francisco a r e a i n C a l i -
f o r n i a and l i v e temporarily with her p a r e n t s while searching f o r
a permanent home f o r h e r s e l f and t h e c h i l d r e n . During t h i s time
she planned t o work as an accounting c l e r k f o r a stockbroker
i n San Francisco and commute t h e 40 miles from h e r p a r e n t s ' home.
She argues i f she were given custody h e r plan would enable t h e
c h i l d r e n t o form a c l o s e and rewarding r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r
maternal grandparents which they would otherwise l o s e .
The f o u r t h f a c t o r r e l a t e s t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s adjustment
t o home, school, and community. The mother contends she can
provide a more s t a b l e environment f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . She n o t e s
t h e f a t h e r , an engineer f o r Bechtel Power Corporation, i s sub-
j e c t t o many geographical d i s r u p t i o n s i n h i s c a r e e r . Although
t h e family had l i v e d i n C o l s t r i p , Montana, f o r over t h r e e years
a t t h e time of t r i a l , i t was t h e f a t h e r ' s t h i r d duty assignment
i n the s i x and one-half years he had worked f o r Bechtel, and h i s
s t a y i n C o l s t r i p was not projected t o l a s t beyond 1981. The
mother argues i f she were given custody t h e c h i l d r e n would not
be s u b j e c t t o these constant and p r e d i c t a b l e r e l o c a t i o n s , b u t
i n s t e a d would have t h e b e n e f i t of a s t a b l e and secure l i f e
with h e r near t h e i r maternal grandparents.
However, t h e record shows a s t a b l e home i n C o l s t r i p . The
family l i v e d i n a modern three-bedroom home. The f a t h e r spent
a l o t of time with t h e c h i l d r e n and they had a c l o s e r e l a t i o n -
ship. He shared i n t h e housekeeping d u t i e s and helped d i s c i p l i n e
the children. H i s place of work was only a few minutes d r i v e
from t h e home and he was a v a i l a b l e i f an emergency arose. But
t h e mother, a t l e a s t temporarily, would be 40 miles away from
the c h i l d r e n , working i n San Francisco. Considering t h e f a c t o r s
a p p l i c a b l e i n s e c t i o n 48-332, we f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n
granting custody t o t h e f a t h e r .
The mother next argues t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t erroneously based
i t s custody decision on t h e superior earning power of t h e f a t h e r .
The f a t h e r earned approximately $1,800 per month and t h e mother
would earn s u b s t a n t i a l l y l e s s i n h e r p o s i t i o n a s an accounting
clerk. Nothing i n t h e record expressly s t a t e s t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t considered t h i s f a c t o r i n determining t h e custody i s s u e ,
but t h e mother argues t h e c o u r t must have done so because t h a t
was " t h e only d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e p a r t i e s 1 ' favorable t o t h e
f a t h e r t h a t was s e t f o r t h i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of
fact. That i s n o t enough. Absent any o t h e r i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e
record we w i l l n o t presume t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s custody award
t o t h e f a t h e r was based on h i s s u p e r i o r earning power.
The mother's f i n a l argument i s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h e evidence rebutted t h e presumption i n favor
of awarding custody of c h i l d r e n of tender years t o t h e i r mother
when a l l t h i n g s a r e equal. I n Tweeten v. Tweeten, Mont . 9
P. 2d , 34 St.Rep. 337, 341, we s t a t e d t h i s presumption
continues under t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, b u t held
t h a t i t i s not conclusive and each custody case must be decided
on i t s own f a c t s " r a t h e r than by t h e use of ' c o n t r o l l i n g o r con-
c l u s i v e ' presumption. * * *"
I n The Matter of t h e Adoption of Redcrow, Mont .-
3
P.2d , 34 St.Rep. 306, 308, t h e Court s t a t e d t h a t a
f i n d i n g t h a t both competing couples a r e f i t and s u i t a b l e adoptive
p a r e n t s i s "not equivalent t o a f i n d i n g t h a t each would e q u a l l y
promote t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e child." This i s a l s o t r u e i n
custody cases. Accordingly, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n
concluding t h a t "* * * t h i s presumption, l i k e any o t h e r d i s p u t a b l e
presumption, may be overcome by c o n t r a r y evidence."
The mother r e l i e s on Casale v. Casale, (Ky.1977' No. 76-
273) , S.W.2d , where the Supreme Court of Kentucky
reversed an a&rd of custody of t h e p a r t i e s ' i n f a n t c h i l d t o
the father, stating:
"*** W a r e n o t prepared t o d e f i n e p r e c i s e l y
e
t h e quantum of proof necessary t o overcome t h e p r e f -
erence t h a t t h e mother should be t h e custodian of
c h i l d r e n of tender years. This i s a value judgment
t h a t has t o be decided on a case-by-case b a s i s . Here
t h e evidence i s so c l o s e , we a r e of t h e opinion t h a t
t h e n a t u r a l preference f o r t h e mother should prevail."
I t thus appears t h a t t h e preference f o r t h e mother comes i n t o
F .
I
play i n Kentucky a t t h e c l o s e of t h e evidence. That i s n o t t h e
case i n Montana. Here, t h e p a r t i e s proceed from the presumption
and once i t i s overcome by a preponderance of t h e evidence t h e r e
i s no preference f o r t h e mother. I n meeting t h i s burden, t h e
f a t h e r need not prove t h e mother t o be u n f i t .
I n t h e i n s t a n t case t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e presumption
i n favor of t h e mother had been overcome by t h e evidence and
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 b e s t served by g r a n t i n g
custody t o t h e f a t h e r .
W a f f i r m t h e judgment
e .
W ...---.---
e Concur:
I*'