Matter of JJS

No. 13922
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE MATTER OF INQUIRY INTO
J.J.S., Youth In Need of Care.

Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
John R. Prater argued, Terry, Montana
For Respondent :

V. G. Koch, County Attorney, Sidney, Montana
Richard G. Phillips, Deputy County Attorney, argued,
Sidney, Montana
Thomas Mahan, Helena, Montana

Submitted: March 7, 1978
.APR
Decided. --3 1978
T? - " . -.:--
Filed: -
L 1 J
M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell 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 a p p e a l by t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s of a minor

c h i l d from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Richland County.

I n t h e judgment, permanent c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d w i t h t h e

r i g h t t o c o n s e n t t o a d o p t i o n was awarded t o t h e Department

of S o c i a l & R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS) of t h e S t a t e of

Montana.

The minor c h i l d was b o r n t o a p p e l l a n t s o n J u l y 9, 1975,

i n D i c k i n s o n , North Dakota. A t t h e t i m e of h i s b i r t h , h i s

f a t h e r was 26 y e a r s o l d and h i s mother was 1 6 y e a r s o l d .

I n 1976, t h e f a m i l y moved t o Wolf P o i n t , Montana. On

o r a b o u t March 2 4 , 1976, t h e f a t h e r was i n j a i l f o r drunken-

n e s s . I t was a t t h i s t i m e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s f i r s t came i n t o

c o n t a c t w i t h SRS, t h r o u g h t h e R o o s e v e l t County W e l f a r e

Department. The w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t e n r o l l e d t h e f a t h e r i n

a n a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t program i n Havre, which he a t t e n d e d f o r

a b o u t a week. On A p r i l 1 9 , 1976, h e was a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g

w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d . From March u n t i l J u l y 1976, t h e a p p e l l a n t s

and t h e i r minor c h i l d were b e i n g a s s i s t e d by t h e R o o s e v e l t

County W e l f a r e Department.

I n J u l y 1976, a p p e l l a n t s , w i t h t h e i r c h i l d , moved t o

S i d n e y , Montana. The R o o s e v e l t County W e l f a r e Department

r e f e r r e d a p p e l l a n t s ' c a s e t o t h e R i c h l a n d County Welfare

Department. I t f i r s t made c o n t a c t w i t h a p p e l l a n t s , i n t h e i r

home, on o r a b o u t J u l y 2 3 , 1976. The s o c i a l worker who made

t h e i n i t i a l c o n t a c t i n S i d n e y , d e s c r i b e d a p p e l l a n t s f home a s

"filthy". A follow-up was made on J u l y 27, 1976, and t h e

same f i l t h y c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d . The w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t

a r r a n g e d homemaker s e r v i c e s f o r a p p e l l a n t s . Throughout

August and September, 1976, t h e s e f i l t h y c o n d i t i o n s c o n t i n u e d .

When t h e s o c i a l worker made a v i s i t on September 29, 1976,
s h e found t h e minor c h i l d was c r a w l i n g around on t h e f l o o r

which was c o v e r e d w i t h a s h e s and c i g a r e t t e r e m a i n s , and h e
was e a t i n g bread crumbs o f f t h e f l o o r . I n October 1976,

c o n d i t i o n s i n a p p e l l a n t s ' home had n o t improved. There was

g a r b a g e on t h e k i t c h e n f l o o r , t h e c h i l d was i n w e t d i a p e r s ,

soaked and p h y s i c a l l y f i l t h y . B e s i d e s p r o v i d i n g homemaker

s e r v i c e s , w e l f a r e a r r a n g e d f o r day c a r e a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e

child. The day c a r e worker t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e c h i l d

was b r o u g h t i n , he w a s f i l t h y , h i s h a i r s m e l l e d of u r i n e ,

and t h e t o p s o f h i s f e e t were b l a c k .

The R i c h l a n d County W e l f a r e Department a l s o g o t t h e

f a t h e r i n t o two a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t programs. He did not

f i n i s h e i t h e r one.

On November 1 9 , 1976, t h e R i c h l a n d County W e l f a r e

Department 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 f o r temporary

c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d . On November 24, 1976, t h e c o u r t

g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e c h i l d w a s p l a c e d i n a f o s t e r

home. The w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t informed a p p e l l a n t s t h a t

c e r t a i n improvements would have t o b e made i n t h e i r home o r

t h e i r c h i l d would b e t a k e n from them permanently. The

improvements SRS r e q u e s t e d were: (1) F u l l - t i m e employment;

( 2 ) a b s t e n t i o n from a l c o h o l ; ( 3 ) e f f e c t i v e budgeting t o s e e

t h a t expenses f o r a l l n e c e s s i t i e s w e r e m e t ; ( 4 ) maintenance

o f good housekeeping and p e r s o n a l c l e a n l i n e s s ; and ( 5 )

weekly menu p l a n n i n g and p r e p a r a t i o n of n u t r i t i o n a l l y

balanced meals. A p p e l l a n t s were g i v e n t h r e e months t o make

t h e s e improvements.

On F e b r u a r y 23, 1977, SRS p e t i t i o n e d f o r permanent

c u s t o d y . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on A p r i l 20, 1977. On May 3 ,

1977, f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law w e r e e n t e r e d
g r a n t i n g permanent c u s t o d y t o S R S . A p p e l l a n t s moved f o r a
new h e a r i n g , which w a s d e n i e d . On J u l y 2 0 , 1977, amended

f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law were e n t e r e d . The

c u s t o d y award was unchanged i n t h e amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t

and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. T h i s a p p e a l t h e n ensued.

Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on a p p e a l :

1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by n o t

appointing independent counsel f o r t h e c h i l d ?

2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n

d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t permanent p l a c e m e n t w i t h SRS was i n 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 i t s amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w ,

t h e 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 t h e a p p o i n t m e n t

of i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e minor c h i l d w a s u n n e c e s s a r y

t o i n s u r e t h e development o f a n a d e q u a t e l y c o m p l e t e r e c o r d

of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . Appellants argue t h e District

C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s o f i n d i n g .

T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l t o

r e p r e s e n t a minor c h i l d i n dependency p r o c e e d i n g s i s n o t

mandatory. The c o u r t "may" a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e c h i l d .

S t u b b e n v . F l a t h e a d County Dept. of P u b l i c W e l f a r e , (19761,

Mont . 556 P.2d 904, 33 St.Rep. 1082. The d e c i -

s i o n i n S t u b b e n was b a s e d o n s e c t i o n 1 0 - 1 3 1 0 ( 1 2 ) , R.C.M.

1947, which p r o v i d e s t h a t a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l f o r t h e

c h i l d i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t .

On J u l y 8 , 1977, t h i s C o u r t i n t e r p r e t e d s e c t i o n 10-

1 3 1 0 ( 1 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, a g a i n . S t i l l r e f u s i n g t o make t h e

a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l f o r a minor c h i l d mandatory, w e h e l d

t h a t where c u s t o d y i s i n s e r i o u s d i s p u t e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t

s h a l l a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e c h i l d o r make a f i n d i n g s t a t i n g

t h e r e a s o n s s u c h a p p o i n t m e n t was u n n e c e s s a r y . I n t h e Matter

of t h e Guardianship of G u l l e t t e , (19771, Mont. I
566 P.2d 396, 34 St.Rep. 277. Appellants argue t h a t t h e

f i n d i n g s of f a c t h e r e were amended on J u l y 20, 1977, t o

b r i n g t h i s c a s e i n t o conformity w i t h G u l l e t t e . T h a t may be
s o , b u t w e f a i l t o see how t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s

d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t appointing counsel f o r t h e c h i l d .

F i r s t , s i n c e t h i s c a s e was h e a r d and d e c i d e d p r i o r t o

o u r d e c i s i o n i n G u l l e t t e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was n o t r e q u i r e d

t o make any f i n d i n g on t h e appointment of c o u n s e l f o r t h e

minor c h i l d . I t i s o n l y i n t h o s e c a s e s h e a r d and d e c i d e d

a f t e r G u l l e t t e t h a t such a f i n d i n g i s necessary. Further,

t h e r u l e i s t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l i s o n l y neces-

s a r y when t h e c h i l d n e e d s a n a d v o c a t e t o r e p r e s e n t h i s

position a s t o the i s s u e s i n dispute o r t o ensure the

development of a n a d e q u a t e l y complete r e c o r d c o n c e r n i n g 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 . I n t h e Matter of D l (1976), 24

0r.App. 601, 547 P.2d 175. N e i t h e r of t h o s e s i t u a t i o n s a r e

present here. The minor c h i l d was t o o young t o have any

p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e s and t h e r e c o r d of t h e h e a r i n g i s

a d e q u a t e t o d e t e r m i n e 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

D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t appointing

counsel f o r t h e c h i l d .

Next, a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s

d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding permanent c u s t o d y t o SRS. They c l a i m

they presented t h e c o u r t with a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o a

permanent t a k i n g of t h e c h i l d from them. This a l t e r n a t i v e

w a s t o have t h e c h i l d p l a c e d i n t h e j o i n t c u s t o d y of a p p e l -

l a n t s and t h e c h i l d ' s g r a n d p a r e n t s , w i t h whom t h e y were

l i v i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e hearing. They a r g u e t h e l e g i s l a -

t i v e i n t e n t i n s e c t i o n 10-1300, R.C.M. 1947, was t o p r e s e r v e

t h e u n i t y and w e l f a r e o f t h e f a m i l y whenever p o s s i b l e .

Thus, a p p e l l a n t s m a i n t a i n t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was c o n t r a r y
t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , a s they presented the c o u r t with

a n a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t c o u l d p r e s e r v e t h e u n i t y of t h e f a m i l y .

W f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n
e

awarding permanent c u s t o d y t o SRS. I n determining t h e

c u s t o d y i s s u 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 s t h e p a r a -

mount c o n c e r n . I n t h e M a t t e r of Henderson, ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168

Mont. 329, 542 P.2d 1204. This Court has s a i d :

"What i s , o r what i s n o t i n 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 depends upon t h e
f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of e a c h case.
The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d e c i d i n g c u s t o d y
i s a d e l i c a t e o n e which i s lodged w i t h
the d i s t r i c t court. The judge h e a r i n g
o r a l testimony i n such a controversy has
a s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining t h e
same, and h i s d e c i s i o n o u g h t n o t t o b e
d i s t u r b e d e x c e p t upon a c l e a r showing of
a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . " Adoption o f B i e r y ,
( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 353, 3 5 6 , 522 P.2d 1377.

Here, t h e r e h a s been no c l e a r showing of a n a b u s e of

discretion.

Our summary o f t h e f a c t s shows t h a t t h e c h i l d was

n e g l e c t e d p r i o r t o t h e temporary c u s t o d y award t o SRS.

Appellants admit they d i d n e g l e c t t h e c h i l d a t t h a t t i m e .

Between t h e t i m e of t h e temporary c u s t o d y o r d e r and t h e

h e a r i n g on permanent c u s t o d y , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t

a p p e l l a n t s had n o t made t h e improvements SRS r e q u e s t e d .

The f a t h e r had e n t e r e d a n o t h e r a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t pro-

gram, b u t h e a g a i n f a i l e d t o f i n i s h i t . He testified that

h e s t i l l d r a n k and had g o t t e n drunk s i n c e t h e c h i l d w a s

removed from t h e home. The t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h e f a t h e r

was working on h i s s t e p f a t h e r ' s f a r m . But, he t e s t i f i e d

t h a t h e went t o work t h e r e on J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1977. Thus, t h e

f a t h e r had n o t had f u l l employment v e r y l o n g p r i o r t o t h e

h e a r i n g and t h e e v i d e n c e shows h e had changed j o b s 1 4 o r 1 5

t i m e s s i n c e a p p e l l a n t s w e r e m a r r i e d i n 1974. The e v i d e n c e

r e v e a l s t h e mother s t i l l needed h e l p i n m a i n t a i n i n g a c l e a n
house and p r e p a r i n g n u t r i t i o n a l m e a l s , even though s h e had

been r e c e i v i n g s u c h h e l p from J u l y t o November, 1976 t h r o u g h

SRS. F i n a l l y , t h e d o c t o r f o r t h e c h i l d informed t h e c o u r t ,

i n h i s r e p o r t , t h a t t h e c h i l d w a s e m o t i o n a l l y d e p r i v e d and

h e would n o t recommend r e t u r n i n g t h e c h i l d t o t h e f a m i l y , a s

t h e c h i l d was p r o g r e s s i n g i n t h e f o s t e r home. A l l this

e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h e c h i l d was n e g l e c t e d and t h e improve-

ments needed i n t h e f a m i l y home had n o t been met.

S i n c e t h e proof shows t h i s minor c h i l d w a s n e g l e c t e d ,

i t would n o t be p o s s i b l e t o p r e s e r v e f a m i l y u n i t y . It is

when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e o f proof t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y

t o p r e s e r v e t h e u n i t y and w e l f a r e of t h e f a m i l y must p r e v a i l .

D i v i s i o n of C h i l d W e l f a r e S e r v i c e s v . F i s h e r , ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169

Mont. 254, 545 P.2d 654. T h e r e f o r e , t h e judgment of t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarding permanent c u s t o d y t o SRS w a s p r o p e r .
Family u n i t y need n o t be p r e s e r v e d a t t h e expense of t h e

child's best interests. In R e G., Youths i n Need of C a r e ,

(1977) I Mont. , 570 P.2d 1 1 1 0 , 34 St.Rep. 1179.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .

4"nd b4)%Wt.&y
Chief J u s t i c e

W e Concur: