No. 13810
I N THE SUPFEME COUIZT OF THE STATE OF M3NTANA
1978
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
BARNEY R. BILLMAN,
~efendant
and Appellant.
Appeal f m : District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Calton and Stephens, Billings, bbntana
For Respondent:
Anderson, Symes, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings, Montana
Suhnitted on briefs: July 21, 1978
Decided: 3EP 26 1978
Mr. 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.
T h i s a p p e a l i s t a k e n from a n o r d e r i s s u e d by t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t , T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Yellowstone
County, whereby a p p e l l a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t
moneys f o r h i s minor c h i l d and h i s v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s
w e r e terminated. The c a u s e was s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s t o t h i s
C o u r t ; no o r a l argument w a s had.
On A p r i l 26, 1974, t h e p a r t i e s Linda Lehman ( f o r m e r l y
B i l l m a n ) and Barney Billman were d i v o r c e d . The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t awarded c u s t o d y of t h e c o u p l e ' s o n l y c h i l d , J o s e p h
R i c h a r d ( J o e y ) t o h i s mother, L i n d a , and o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r ,
Barney, t o c o n t r i b u t e $100 p e r month toward s u p p o r t of t h e
child.
Barney 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 on September 3 0 ,
1975, f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e , a s k i n g t h a t
t h e amount of s u p p o r t money t o b e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c h i l d
b e reduced by 50 p e r c e n t and t h a t v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s b e
a f f o r d e d him. A h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r w a s postponed, ap-
p a r e n t l y b e c a u s e Barney f a i l e d t o a p p e a r . On F e b r u a r y 11,
1976, Barney renewed h i 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
d e c r e e i n r e s p e c t of v i s i t a t i o n , and a g a i n a p p a r e n t l y f a i l e d
t o a p p e a r a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion.
Seven months a f t e r Linda s o u g h t a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r
a g a i n s t him, Barney a g a i n p e t i t i o n e d on October 25, 1976,
f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e , s e e k i n g (1) a d e t e r -
m i n a t i o n of t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n which h e was i n
a r r e a r s , ( 2 ) a n o r d e r t o compel t h e c h i l d Joey e n r o l l e d i n
s c h o o l under t h e surname " B i l l m a n " , n o t Lehman, t h e name by
which t h e c h i l d was known and had been e n r o l l e d , and ( 3 ) a n
o r d e r e n j o i n i n g t h e mother from " p o i s o n i n g " t h e c h i l d ' s mind
a g a i n s t Barney.
A f t e r t h e November 4 , 1976, h e a r i n g on B a r n e y ' 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 which a r e c o r d was made, Judge C.
B. Sande i s s u e d t h e f i r s t f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r
m o d i f y i n g t h e d e c r e e , d a t e d December 8 , 1976, by which h e
d i d t h e following:
1. S e t t h e amount which Barney was i n arrears i n h i s
c h i l d support obligation;
2. Reduced t h e amount Barney was t o c o n t r i b u t e toward
t h e s u p p o r t of J o e y ;
3. S e t a s p e c i f i c t i m e f o r v i s i t a t i o n between Barney
and J o e y ;
4 . Ordered t h e c h i l d t o b e e n r o l l e d i n s c h o o l under and
go by t h e surname " B i l l m a n " , even though, a s t h e c o u r t
acknowledged, "The c h i l d i s n o t r e c o g n i z e d by s c h o o l au-
t h o r i t i e s under t h e d e f e n d a n t f a t h e r ' s surname of illm man";
and
5. E n j o i n e d t h e mother from p o i s o n i n g t h e c h i l d ' s mind
a g a i n s t Barney.
Two f i l i n g s were made on December 1 3 , 1976, o n e , a
motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and o r d e r , advanced by t h e
m o t h e r ' s c o u n s e l , and t h e o t h e r a s t i p u l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g
supervised v i s i t a t i o n . W i t h i n d a y s , on December 22, 1976,
Barney 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 , s e e k i n g , i n t e r a l i a ,
c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d .
On J a n u a r y 3 , 1977, Linda f i l e d a c r o s 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 d e c r e e t o e l i m i n a t e a l l of B a r n e y ' s
visitation privileges. The f o l l o w i n g month, Judge Sande
i s s u e d new f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r modifying t h e
d e c r e e , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 , 1977.
During t h e t i m e between t h e two o r d e r s , numerous i n -
chambers c o n f e r e n c e s and i n t e r v i e w s were conducted. Parti-
c i p a n t s included t h e c o u r t , a t t o r n e y s f o r both p a r t i e s ,
t h e p a r t i e s t h e m s e l v e s , t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother, c o u r t
s e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l , and t h e c h i l d .
C e r t a i n of t h e r e c o r d i s s c a n t y , some i s e n t i r e l y
a b s e n t , e x c e p t by r e f e r e n c e , b u t i t i s c l e a r t h a t Barney
h a d , and l i k e l y may y e t h a v e , what i s e u p h e m i s t i c a l l y re-
f e r r e d t o a s a "problem w i t h d r i n k i n g " . During t h e c o u r s e
of h i s m a r r i a g e t o L i n d a , Barney would o f t e n d r i n k and t h e n
engage i n v i o l e n t and a b u s i v e b e h a v i o r , r a n g i n g from c a l l i n g
L i n d a ' s young d a u g h t e r J o d y , who l i v e d w i t h t h e c o u p l e
d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e , n a s t y names, t o throwing knickknacks
and r u n n i n g o v e r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s t o y s , t o s t r i k i n g and
a b u s i n g Linda i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n . T h a t be-
h a v i o r e v e n t u a l l y prompted Linda t o s e e k a d i v o r c e from
Barney. I n September, 1974, Linda was m a r r i e d t o Stephen R.
Lehman, who h a s developed and m a i n t a i n s a p a r e n t - c h i l d
r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Joey. In contrast, during the four years
s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e , Barney h a s had v e r y l i t t l e c o n t a c t w i t h
Joey. I t a p p e a r s t h a t a l t h o u g h on o c c a s i o n , t o p r o t e c t t h e
c h i l d , Linda r e f u s e d t o l e t Barney see him, Barney, o v e r
extended p e r i o d s of t i m e , v o l u n t a r i l y neglected t o c o n t a c t
t h e boy.
Based on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g a r n e r e d from t h e c o n f e r e n c e s
and i n t e r v i e w s and from t h e p r i o r h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t i s s u e d
t h e second o r d e r , which i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s :
1. The d e f e n d a n t f a t h e r h a s had a s e r i o u s d r i n k i n g
problem and w a s a poor husband and f a t h e r ; h e w i l l f u l l y
f a i l e d t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t and v o l u n t a r i l y n e g l e c t e d v i s i -
t a t i o n of h i s c h i l d ;
2 . Because o f B a r n e y ' s d r i n k i n g and t h e c h i l d ' s a t t i -
t u d e toward t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e mother a t t i m e s p r e v e n t e d
visitation;
3 . J o e y d o e s n o t want c o n t a c t w i t h Barney, and v i s i t a -
t i o n c a n b e accomplished o n l y by p h y s i c a l l y t a k i n g t h e c h i l d
against his w i l l ;
4 . Forced v i s i t a t i o n would b e h a r m f u l , b o t h m e n t a l l y
and e m o t i o n a l l y , t o t h e c h i l d ;
5. The d e f e n d a n t i s u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e a s u i t a b l e home
f o r J o e y , w h i l e Linda and h e r husband have p r o v i d e d a n
e x c e l l e n t home and p a r e n t a l c a r e f o r him;
6 . The c h i l d l o o k s t o S t e p h e n R. Lehrnan a s h i s f a t h e r
and a change i n c u s t o d y would be e x t r e m e l y harmful t o t h e
child;
7. What s u p p o r t t h e d e f e n d a n t d o e s p r o v i d e i s n o t
needed and i s a s o u r c e of c o n t i n u i n g c o n f l i c t between t h e
p a r t i e s ; and
8. The p a r t i e s s o h a t e one a n o t h e r t h a t c o n t i n u e d
c o n t a c t between them would r e s u l t i n harm t o t h e c h i l d .
A f t e r making t h o s e f i n d i n g s and c o n s i d e r i n g t h e b e s t
i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d , t h e c o u r t concluded and o r d e r e d t h a t
B a r n e y ' s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n be t e r m i n a t e d and t h a t h e b e
denied f u r t h e r v i s i t a t i o n with t h e c h i l d .
On March 2 4 , 1977, n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d by
Barney's attorney. A f t e r numerous d e l a y s on a p p e l l a n t ' s
p a r t over a ten-to-eleven month p e r i o d , on J a n u a r y 20, 1978,
t h i s C o u r t , o f i t s own motion, o r d e r e d t h e a p p e l l a n t t o show
c a u s e why t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d n o t b e d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o
f i l e a brief. A b r i e f was s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d on J a n u a r y 31,
1978.
Although c o u n s e l f o r r e s p o n d e n t a r g u e s s t r o n g l y and
persuasively f o r t h i s Court t o dismiss t h e i n s t a n t appeal
b a s e d on a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e b o t h t o t i m e l y - a p p e a l and t o
p u r s u e t h e a p p e a l w i t h some measure of d i l i g e n c e , w e r e s t
o u r d e c i s i o n on t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t heed be p a i d
t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . S e c t i o n s 48-332 and 48-337,
R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1 9 7 7 ) . I t happens t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s d i l a -
t o r i n e s s i n pursuing h i s appeal i s an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r
which s u p p o r t s o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t 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 s s e r v e d by u p h o l d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s second
o r d e r t e r m i n a t i n g b o t h B a r n e y ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e sup-
p o r t moneys and h i s v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o modify a n o r d e r
g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s whenever m o d i f i c a t i o n
would 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 . S e c t i o n 48-
337 ( 2 ) , X.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977) . By t h e e x p r e s s t e r m s of
the s t a t u t e , the court i s required t o find t h a t "visitation
would endanger s e r i o u s l y t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l ,
moral, o r emotional h e a l t h . " The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y
found t h a t " v i s i t a t i o n a t t h i s t i m e c a n b e accomplished o n l y
by p h y s i c a l l y t a k i n g t h e boy a g a i n s t h i s w i l l and f o r c i n g
t h e v i s i t a t i o n " and t h a t " e n f o r c e d v i s i t a t i o n would b e
m e n t a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y harmful t o t h e c h i l d . "
Those f i n d i n g s w e r e based on i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h e
c o u r t d u r i n g a series of - camera c o n f e r e n c e s and i n t e r -
in
v i e w s , i n which a l l i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s p a r t i c i p a t e d a t
v a r i o u s t i m e s between t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e two f i n d i n g s ,
c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r s . A p p e l l a n t c h a r g e 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 a i l i n g t o c a u s e a r e c o r d t o be made of t h e
i n chambers i n t e r v i e w ( s ) w i t h t h e c h i l d . A p p e l l a n t com-
p l a i n s of t h e l a c k o f s u c h r e c o r d , y e t h e , w i t h and t h r o u g h
h i s counsel, agreed t o attempt t o informally resolve t h e
problem of v i s i t a t i o n , and, t o t h a t e n d , a g r e e d t h a t o f f -
t h e - r e c o r d c o n f e r e n c e s and i n t e r v i e w s were t o be h e l d . That
s u c h agreement was made i s n o t d i s p u t e d by a p p e l l a n t ; f u r t h e r -
more, d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o i t i s made i n t h e s t a t e m e n t p r e f a -
tory t o the D i s t r i c t Court's findings, viz., "This matter
h a v i n g come b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on opposing motions of t h e
p a r t i e s , and t h e C o u r t having h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y t a k e n i n
p r e v i o u s h e a r i n g s i n t h i s m a t t e r and h a v i n g met- chambers
- in
p u r s u a n t - agreement of c o u n s e l w i t h - p a r t i e s , t h e i r
to - - the
c o u n s e l , t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother, t h e minor - - - e
son of t h
p a r t i e s , - - C o u r t S e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l , who h a s i n v e s t i -
and t h e
g a t e d and a s s i s t e d i n t h e m a t t e r , t h e C o u r t makes t h e f o l -
lowing FINDINGS O F FACT." (Emphasis added.)
I n order t o determine i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d e r r i n
t h i s r e g a r d , w e must i n q u i r e whether c o u n s e l may waive t h e
r e q u i r e m e n t imposed by s e c t i o n 4 8 - 3 3 4 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947 (Supp.
1977) , t h a t a r e c o r d be made o f t h e c o u r t ' s i n t e r v i e w ( s ) of
the child. Examination of a most r e c e n t d e c i s i o n , E a s t o n v .
Easton (1978), Mont. -I ,
- 574 P.2d 989, 992, 35
St.Rep. 1 2 3 , 126, r e v e a l s t h a t i n d e e d c o u n s e l may s o waive,
and s h o u l d he do s o , he may n o t l a t e r complain t h a t he was
prejudiced thereby. I n Easton, t h e D i s t r i c t Court, pursuant
t o agreement of c o u n s e l , r e q u i r e d no r e c o r d be made of a
p a r t i c u l a r hearing. Remarking t h a t "* * * Counsel s u r e l y
knows t h e t e r m ' w a i v e r ' i s generally defined a s a voluntary
and i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n t of a known r i g h t , c l a i m o r
p r i v i l e g e " , Easton v. Easton, Mont. a t , 574 P.2d a t
992, 35 St.Rep. a t 126, t h i s Court took exception t o t h e
o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t t h a t no r e c o r d was made of t h e
hearing. W e likewise take exception i n t h e i n s t a n t case.
A p p e l l a n t may n o t waive, v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y , a
known r i g h t - - h e r e , t h e r i g h t t o have made a r e c o r d of t h e
court's - camera interview(s) of the child--and later
in
complain that the District Court erred in accomodating him.
his specification of error is specious to a court of equity
which considers that one's acquiescence in error takes away
the right of objecting to it. Section 49-108, R.C.M. 1947
(Supp. 1977); see Brannon v. Lewis & Clark County (1963),
143 Mont. 200, 208, 387 P.2d 706, 711.
The District Court exercised the option made available
to it under section 48-334 (I), R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977), and
interviewed the child in chambers "to ascertain [his] wishes
as to his custodian and as to visitation." Apparently the
court allowed counsel for appellant and perhaps appellant
himself to be present at the interview(s), in conformity
with the discretion granted the court by that same statute.
The court determined that the best interest of the child
would be served by terminating Barney's visitation rights.
We defer to that judgment, because the District Court has a
superior advantage in determining these difficult problems.
See Weber v. Weber (1978), Mont . -
1 ,
- 576 P.2d
1102, 1104, 35 St.Rep. 309, 311-12, and cases cited therein.
The Montana statutes are specific in their requirements,
from setting forth how a custody or support proceeding shall
be entitled, section 48-315(2), R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977), to
demanding that, in the absence of written consent of the
parties, there be a showing of changed circumstances to
support a petition for modification of a decree in respect
of support, section 48-330(1) (a), R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 19771,
to mandabkg that an affidavit setting forth facts sup-
porting the requested modification accompany papers seeking
modification of a custody decree, section 48-340, R.C.M.
1947 (Supp. 1977). Counsel's failure to comply with these
statutory requisites, a s i n the i n s t a n t case, is invitation
t o e r r o n e o u s r u l i n g s and d e t e r m i n a t i o n s p r e j u d i c i a l b o t h t o
t h e i r c l i e n t s ' r i g h t s and t o t h e s y s t e m o f j u s t i c e o f which
they a r e guardians.
Our r e f u s a l t o d e c i d e t h i s c a s e on p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d s
i s n o t t o be mistaken a s c l o s i n g our eyes t o t h e n e c e s s i t y
o f complying w i t h s t a t u t o r y d i c t a t e s . A remand i n t h e
i n s t a n t c a s e , however, would s e r v e b u t t o f u r t h e r d e l a y
r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s m a t t e r and t h u s work a g a i n s t t h e b e s t
i n t e r e s t o f t h e minor c h i l d . Because it i s 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 which i s made t h e ground o f o u r d e c i s i o n , w e
a l l o w t o s t a n d t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r more
l a t e l y i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
W e Concur:
#.%%4
Chief J u s t i c e