No. 14323
I N THE SUPIiEME COUIiT OF THE STATE: OF MONTANA
1978
cm m 2 L.
l u J BOICHERS,
Petitioner ard Respondent,
-VS-
JOHN RAYMOND McCARTEFt, JR.,
Respondent and Appellant.
m a 1 frm: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eleventh Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
m d e n , Walterskirchen & Christiansen, Kalispell, bbntana
Richard DeJana argued, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondent:
Patrick Springer, County Attorney, Kalispell, Wntana
Russell K. Jones argued, Deputy County Attorney, Kalispell,
Montana
Fbbert Allison, Kalispell, Montana
Submitted: November 17, 1978
Decided: MAR 2 . 1979
Filed :
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.
On September 1 4 , 1 9 7 6 , p e t i t i o n e r , C h a r l e n e L . B o r c h e r s ,
f i l e d a p e t i t i o n and o r d e r i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e
E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F l a t h e a d County, p u r s u a n t t o t h e
p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e " R e v i s e d Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement o f
S u p p o r t A c t ( 1 9 6 8 ) " [URESA], s e c t i o n s 93-2601-41 t h r o u g h 93-
2601-82, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 40-5-101 t h r o u g h 40-5-142
MCA. On December 1 3 t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e
matter b e h e l d i n a b e y a n c e p e n d i n g a n a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e
paternity issue. R e s p o n d e n t , J o h n Raymond M c C a r t e r , J r . ,
was s u b s e q u e n t l y f o u n d t o b e t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f p e t i -
t i o n e r ' s d a u g h t e r f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l commencing March 6 ,
1978. H e appeals.
P e t i t i o n e r and r e s p o n d e n t m e t i n J u n e 1965 w h i l e work-
i n g a t a r e t i r e m e n t home i n t h e S t a t e o f Oregon. A t the
t i m e t h e y m e t , p e t i t i o n e r was m a r r i e d t o C a r l B o r c h e r s , b u t
t h e y p a r t e d i n December 1965. H e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h respon-
d e n t t h e n d e v e l o p e d r a p i d l y , and s h e became p r e g n a n t . In
J u n e 1966, r e s p o n d e n t moved t o D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , b u t con-
tinued t o correspond with p e t i t i o n e r . On November 1, 1 9 6 6 ,
p e t i t i o n e r g a v e b i r t h t o a baby g i r l .
A t t h e t i m e of t h e b i r t h , p e t i t i o n e r w a s lawfully
married t o C a r l Borchers. H i s name a p p e a r s on t h e c h i l d ' s
b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e as t h e f a t h e r . P e t i t i o n e r subsequently
o b t a i n e d a d i v o r c e from him on November 30, 1966, h a v i n g
waited u n t i l a f t e r t h e baby's b i r t h t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e
divorce proceedings.
Over t h e c o u r s e o f t h e n e x t s e v e r a l y e a r s , p e t i t i o n e r
made a number o f a t t e m p t s t o o b t a i n c h i l d s u p p o r t payments
from r e s p o n d e n t p u r s u a n t t o URESA. I n 1967, she f i l e d a
p e t i t i o n f o r s u p p o r t i n Marion County, Oregon. I t was
forwarded t o Lake County, Montana, b u t n e v e r p r o s e c u t e d . A
second URESA p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d i n Oklahoma County, Okla-
homa, and forwarded t o Lake County, Montana, i n 1969.
Again, no a c t i o n w a s t a k e n on t h e p e t i t i o n .
A f t e r 1969 p e t i t i o n e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e l o s t t r a c k of
r e s p o n d e n t f o r some y e a r s . During t h i s t i m e s h e was remar-
r i e d , i n 1971, and l a t e r d i v o r c e d , i n 1973. The n e x t URESA
p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n Benton County, Oregon, i n 1975, and
forwarded t o Denver County, Colorado. A l i t t l e more t h a n a
y e a r l a t e r a f o u r t h p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n Benton County,
Oregon, and forwarded t o Boulder County, Colorado. Then, on
September 3 , 1976, a f i f t h p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n Benton
County, Oregon, and forwarded t o F l a t h e a d County, Montana.
T h i s l a s t p e t i t i o n forms t h e b a s i s of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e .
No e v i d e n c e was i n t r o d u c e d t o show t h a t r e s p o n d e n t was
s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s u n t i l 1976. A f t e r h e had been s e r v e d i n
1976, a h e a r i n g was h e l d a t which t i m e r e s p o n d e n t moved t o
d i s m i s s t h e c i t a t i o n and a s s e r t e d a s a d e f e n s e t h a t h e was
n o t t h e f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d named i n t h e p e t i t i o n . On
December 1 3 , 1976, t h e Honorable James M. Salansky ordered:
" 1 . T h a t t h i s m a t t e r b e h e l d i n abeyance u n t i l
P e t i t i o n e r , t h r o u g h h e r own c o u n s e l , b r i n g s a n
a c t i o n f o r p a t e r n i t y a g a i n s t Respondent.
" 2 . T h a t upon judgment b e i n g e n t e r e d i n any a c -
t i o n f o r p a t e r n i t y b r o u g h t by P e t i t i o n e r a g a i n s t
Respondent t h e C o u r t w i l l a g a i n c o n s i d e r t h e
above m a t t e r . "
On August 2 4 , 1977, t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y f o r
F l a t h e a d County f i l e d a " P e t i t i o n f o r D e t e r m i n a t i o n of
P a t e r n i t y " i n t h e same c o u r t and under t h e same c a u s e number
a s t h e a c t i o n which had p r e v i o u s l y been h e l d i n abeyance.
Following a f l u r r y of p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s , t h e t r i a l began on
March 6, 1978, and r e s u l t e d i n a j u r y v e r d i c t f i n d i n g :
" 1 . The presumption t h a t C a r l H. B o r c h e r s i s t h e
n a t u r a l f a t h e r of Jayne Eliazabeth [ s i c ] Borchers
- been r e b u t t e d .
has
" 2 . John Raymond McCarter, J r . , i s t h e n a t u r a l
f a t h e r of J a y n e E l i z a b e t h ~ o r c h e r s . "
Respondent a p p e a l s from t h i s j u r y v e r d i c t , and p e t i -
t i o n e r h a s moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l a s p r e m a t u r e . A
number of i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w b u t w e f i n d two
i s s u e s t o b e d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s c a s e :
1. Whether t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d f o r a b s e n c e
o f a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n from which a n a p p e a l may b e t a k e n .
2. Whether f a i l u r e t o r e b u t t h e presumption t h a t C a r l
B o r c h e r s was t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d w i t h i n f i v e
years of t h e c h i l d ' s b i r t h b a r s a p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t a
nonpresumed p e r s o n .
On May 4 , 1978, r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d h i s n o t i c e of a p p e a l
i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. On May 23, p e t i t i o n e r moved t h i s
C o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l on t h e grounds t h a t ". . . no
f i n a l , a p p e a l a b l e judgment and o r d e r of s u p p o r t [had] been
entered i n t h i s action . . ." The motion was s u b m i t t e d
without b r i e f . Respondent a r g u e d i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e
motion t o d i s m i s s t h a t t h e p a t e r n i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n and t h e
s u p p o r t d e t e r m i n a t i o n a r e , i n e f f e c t , s e p a r a t e a c t i o n s and
t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s an a p p e a l a b l e
f i n a l judgment under Rule 1, M.R.App.Civ.P.
S e c t i o n 93-2601-67, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-5-128
MCA, provides:
" I f t h e o b l i g o r asserts a s a d e f e n s e t h a t he
i s n o t t h e f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d f o r whom s u p p o r t
i s s o u g h t and i t a p p e a r s t o t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e
d e f e n s e i s n o t f r i v o l o u s , and i f b o t h of t h e
p a r t i e s a r e p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g o r t h e proof
required i n t h e case i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e presence
of e i t h e r o r b o t h of t h e p a r t i e s i s n o t n e c e s -
s a r y , t h e c o u r t may a d j u d i c a t e t h e p a t e r n i t y
i s s u e . O t h e r w i s e t h e c o u r t may a d j o u r n t h e
h e a r i n g u n t i l t h e p a t e r n i t y i s s u e h a s been ad-
judicated."
C i t i n g B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y (Rev. 4 t h Ed. 1 9 6 8 ) , t h e
Oregon Supreme C o u r t f o u n d a n " a d j u d i c a t i o n " t o b e " t h e
g i v i n g o r p r o n o u n c i n g a judgment o r d e c r e e i n a c a u s e . "
Vasquez v . C o u r t n e y ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 272 O r . 477, 537 P.2d 536, 537.
S e e a l s o , Leonard v . Leonard ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 88 I d a h o 485, 401 P.2d
541, 545; a n d , S t a t e v . Hoffman ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 230 O r . 9 8 , 385 P.2d
741, 743-44.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r o f December 1 3 , 1 9 7 6 , i s
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i n p r o v i d i n g " [ t l h a t upon
judgment b e i n g e n t e r e d - any a c t i o n f o r p a t e r n i t y b r o u g h t
in
by P e t i t i o n e r a g a i n s t Respondent t h e C o u r t w i l l a g a i n con-
s i d e r t h e above m a t t e r . " (Emphasis a d d e d . ) T h e r e f o r e , w e
f i n d t h a t t h e j u r y v e r d i c t r e t u r n e d March 7 , 1978, amounted,
i n s u b s t a n c e , t o a f i n a l judgment from which a n a p p e a l may
b e t a k e n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1, M.R.App.Civ.P.
W e a r e l e f t , then, w i t h t h e t a s k of determining whether
f a i l u r e t o r e b u t t h e presumption t h a t C a r l Borchers w a s t h e
n a t u r a l f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d w i t h i n f i v e y e a r s of t h e c h i l d ' s
b i r t h should have b a r r e d t h i s p a t e r n i t y a c t i o n a g a i n s t a
nonpresumed p e r s o n . W e f i n d t h a t i t should have.
I n 1950 t h e N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of Commissioners o n
Uniform S t a t e Laws a p p r o v e d t h e Uniform R e c i p r o c a l E n f o r c e -
ment o f S u p p o r t A c t . The A c t was s u b s e q u e n t l y amended i n
1 9 5 2 , 1958, and 1968. Montana f i r s t a d o p t e d URESA i n 1 9 5 1 ,
Ch. 222, Laws o f Montana ( 1 9 5 1 ) . That a c t w a s replaced i n
1 9 6 1 when Montana a d o p t e d t h e 1958 v e r s i o n o f URESA, Ch.
208, Laws o f Montana ( 1 9 6 1 ) . Then, i n 1 9 6 9 , Montana a d o p t e d
the ~ e v i s e dUniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement o f S u p p o r t A c t ,
~ h 237, Laws of Montana ( 1 9 6 9 ) .
. W e n o t e s e c t i o n 93-2601-
8 1 , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-5-142 MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t
" [ t l h i s act s h a l l be s o construed a s t o e f f e c t u a t e i t s
g e n e r a l p u r p o s e t o make u n i f o r m t h e l a w o f t h o s e s t a t e s
which e n a c t i t . "
A number o f r e c e n t c a s e s , a r i s i n g i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s
which have n o t a d o p t e d t h e 1968 r e v i s e d a c t , have a f f i r m a -
t i v e l y answered t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r URESA, a b s e n t t h e 1968
amendment e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d i n g f o r p a t e r n i t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n ,
i m p l i c i t l y authorizes c o u r t s t o determine p a t e r n i t y . See
G r e e n s t r e e t v . C l a r k (Iowa 1 9 7 6 ) , 239 N.W.2d 143; C l a r k s t o n
v . B r i d e ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 273 O r . 68, 539 P.2d 1094; a n d , Yetter v .
Comrneau ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 84 Wash.2d 1 5 5 , 524 P.2d 901. Montana h a s
a d o p t e d t h e c l e a r s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e o f s e c t i o n 27 o f t h e
R e v i s e d Uniform A c t , l e a v i n g no q u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r a
c o u r t c a n d e t e r m i n e p a t e r n i t y a s p a r t o f a URESA a c t i o n i n
t h i s s t a t e , s e c t i o n 93-2601-67, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-
5-128 MCA. However, s p e c i f i c p r o c e d u r e s f o r a d d r e s s i n g t h e
p a t e r n i t y i s s u e are n o t s e t f o r t h i n t h e r e v i s e d uniform
act.
Our l e g i s l a t u r e h a s , t h o u g h , p r o v i d e d a s t a t u t o r y
method o f d e t e r m i n i n g p a t e r n i t y u n d e r t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e
Act, s e c t i o n 61-301 e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 40-6-
1 0 1 e t s e q . MCA. When f a c e d w i t h s t a t u t e s which a d d r e s s t h e
same s u b j e c t , w e "must harmonize [ t h e m ] , i f p o s s i b l e , and
g i v e e f f e c t t o each." S t a t e e x r e l . I r v i n v . Anderson
( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 513, 524, 525 P.2d 564, 570. "where
s t a t u t e s r e l a t e t o t h e s a m e general s u b j e c t they should be
s o c o n s t r u e d t o g e t h e r , where t h e r e i s no i n c o n s i s t e n c y
between them, s o as t o g i v e e f f e c t t o b o t h where p o s s i b l e . "
C i t y of B i l l i n g s v . Smith ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 158 Mont. 197, 212, 490
The c o u r t i n C l a r k s t o n , s u p r a , n o t i n g s i m i l a r circum-
stances, stated:
"Since t h e i s s u e s involved i n e s t a b l i s h i n g pater-
n i t y i n a URESA p r o c e e d i n g p r e c i s e l y p a r a l l e l t h o s e
r a i s e d i n a f i l i a t i o n proceeding, w e b e l i e v e t h a t ,
a b s e n t some d i s t i n g u i s h i n g p o l i c y , p a r a l l e l p r o c e -
dures should be followed.
"The URESA i s a r e m e d i a l s t a t u t e d e s i g n e d t o e q u a l -
i z e t h e r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s of r e s i d e n c e and non-
r e s i d e n t p l a i n t i f f s i n support proceedings. While
i t r e f l e c t s a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r e s t i n minimizing
t h e a d d i t i o n a l b u r d e n s and e x p e n s e s which would
o t h e r w i s e b e i n c u r r e d by n o n r e s i d e n t p l a i n t i f f s ,
t h i s i n t e r e s t must b e b a l a n c e d a g a i n s t a l e g i s l a t i v e
c o n c e r n f o r t h e s e n s i t i v i t y of p a t e r n i t y a d j u d i c a -
t i o n s and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y of
providing procedural p r o t e c t i o n s f o r such determina-
tions . . ." C l a r k s t o n , 539 P.2d a t 1099.
The Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t r e c o g n i z e s t h i s c o n n e c t i o n i n
s e c t i o n 6 1 - 3 0 9 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-109 (1) MCA,
which p r o v i d e s :
"The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s j u r s i d i c t i o n of a n a c t i o n
b r o u g h t under t h i s a c t . The a c t i o n may b e j o i n e d
w i t h a n a c t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n , annulment, s e p a r a t e
maintenance, s u p p o r t , o r a d o p t i o n . " (Emphasis
added. )
W e h o l d t h e n t h a t t h e i s s u e of p a t e r n i t y i n a URESA
a c t i o n s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
t h e "Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t , " s e c t i o n 61-301 e t s e q . , R.C.M.
1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-101 e t s e q . MCA. See M a t t e r of
M a r r i a g e o f G r i d l e y ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 28 Or-App. 1 4 5 , 558 P.2d 1277,
I n a p p l y i n g t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t a s a d o p t e d i n
Montana, t o t h e f a c t s o f t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , w e f i r s t n o t e
t h a t s e c t i o n 61-305, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-105 MCA,
provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
" ( 1 ) A man i s presumed t o b e t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r o f
a child i f :
" ( a ) h e and t h e c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l mother a r e o r have
been m a r r i e d t o e a c h o t h e r and t h e c h i l d i s b o r n
d u r i n g t h e m a r r i a g e , o r w i t h i n t h r e e hundred (300)
d a y s a f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e i s t e r m i n a t e d by d e a t h ,
annulment, d e c l a r a t i o n o f i n v a l i d i t y , o r d i v o r c e ,
o r a f t e r a d e c r e e of s e p a r a t i o n i s e n t e r e d by a
court;
" ( 2 ) A presumption under t h i s s e c t i o n may be
r e b u t t e d i n a n a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n by a preponder-
a n c e of t h e e v i d e n c e . "
Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o o u r s t a t u t e , C a r l B o r c h e r s i s t h e presumed
f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d .
S e c t i o n 61-307, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-6-107 MCA,
a d d r e s s e s who may b r i n g a n a c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e a f a t h e r and
child relationship.
" ( 1 ) Any i n t e r e s t e d p a r t y may b r i n g a n a c t i o n f o r
t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o r non-
e x i s t e n c e of t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p
presumed p u r s u a n t - s e c t i o n 61-305.
to
" ( 2 ) An a c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x i s t e n c e of
t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h r e s p e c t
t o a c h i l d who h a s no presumed f a t h e r under
s e c t i o n 61-305 may be b r o u g h t by t h e c h i l d , t h e
mother o r p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e c h i l d ,
t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f s o c i a l and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ser-
vices o r its appropriate local a f f i l i a t e , the
p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o r a p a r e n t of t h e mother
i f t h e mother h a s d i e d , a man a l l e g e d o r a l l e g i n g
himself t o be t h e f a t h e r , o r t h e personal repre-
s e n t a t i v e o r a p a r e n t of t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r i f
t h e a l l e g e d f a t h e r h a s d i e d o r i s a minor."
(Emphasis a d d e d . )
T h e r e f o r e , i n Montana, a p e r s o n w i s h i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h e
e x i s t e n c e of t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p between a
c h i l d and a nonpresumed p e r s o n , where t h e c h i l d h a s a p r e -
sumed f a t h e r p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 61-305, X.C.M. 1947, now
s e c t i o n 40-6-105 MCA, must f i r s t r e b u t t h e s t a t u t o r y p r e -
sumption of p a t e r n i t y i n a n o t h e r .
As a result, s e c t i o n 6 1 - 3 0 8 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947, now s e c -
t i o n 40-6-108(1) MCA, a p p l i e s t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e and b a r s
a n a c t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p
between r e s p o n d e n t and t h e minor d a u g h t e r .
" ( 1 ) L i m i t a t i o n when f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p
i s presumed.
" ( a ) An a c t i o n may b e commenced a t any t i m e f o r
t h e p u r p o s e o f d e c l a r i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e
f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p presumed under
paragraph ( a ) , ( b ) , o r ( c ) of s e c t i o n 61-305(1);
orI
" ( b ) - - p u r p o s e of d e c l a r i n g t h e n o n e x i s t e n c e
For t h e
- th
o f -e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p presumed under
p a r a g r a p h (a), (b), o r ( c ) of s e c t i o n 61-305(1)
-l-i -t h e a c t i o n i s b r o u g h t w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e
on y f
t i m e a f t e r ~ b t a i n i n g k n o w l e d ~ e relevant facts,
of
b u t - - e v e n t l a t e r --- e a r s a f t e r
i n no than f i v e (5) y
the child's birth. A f t e r t h e ~ r e s u m ~ t i o n s been
ha
r e b u t t e d , p a t e r n i t y of t h e c h i l d by a n o t h e r man
may b e d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e same a c t i o n , i f he h a s
been made a p a r t y . " (Emphasis a d d e d . )
Reversed and remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r a n o r d e r
dismissing the action.
W e concur:
Justices