No. 14316
IN THE SUPRFME CXUHT OF THE STATE OF' MONTANA
1978
IXlRLENE L W S ,
. I m
L
Petitioner and Appellant,
-vs-
WILLIAM A. WILSON,
Respondent and Respondent.
A-
p1 from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Homrable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appllant:
Schulz, Davis & Warren, Dillon, Mntana
Thanas Dooling, Dillon, b5c)ntar-m
For Respondent:
W. G. G i l b e r t 1 1 Dillon, I%ntana
1,
Suhnitted on briefs: October 30, 1978
Decided: FEF 37!3
Filed : ke:
- ?
?-E-
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a p p e a l i s b r o u g h t by D a r l e n e Wilson from a judg-
ment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
County of Beaverhead, i n which t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d W i l l i a m
Wilson, h e r former husband, c u s t o d y of t h e i r t h r e e minor
children. Mrs. Wilson (now P a r k s ) c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t e r r e d i n two r e s p e c t s and i t s c u s t o d y d e c r e e s h o u l d b e
r e v e r s e d and c u s t o d y g r a n t e d t o h e r . F i r s t she argues t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t g a v e t o o much w e i g h t i n i t s c u s t o d y f i n d i n g s
t o h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h one ~ i c h a r d arks during t h e period
P
a f t e r h e r s e p a r a t i o n from h e r husband. Second s h e c o n t e n d s
t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by con-
d u c t i n g a p r i v a t e o f f - r e c o r d i n t e r v i e w i n chambers w i t h h e r
two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n , aged n i n e and t e n y e a r s , f o r t h e pur-
p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g w i t h which p a r e n t t h e y p r e f e r r e d t o
live.
The i s s u e s f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n are:
1. Does a 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 a
c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e when it c o n s i d e r s a p a r e n t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p
and c o n d u c t w i t h a n o t h e r p e r s o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e s t
i n t e r e s t s of t h e children?
2. I t i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r a D i s t r i c t Court t o
conduct a n off-record interview with t h e c h i l d r e n of a
d i s s o l v e d m a r r i a g e t o d e t e r m i n e w i t h which p a r e n t t h e y would
prefer t o live?
W i l l i a m and D a r l e n e Wilson w e r e m a r r i e d a t B i l l i n g s ,
Montana, i n 1963. They had t h r e e c h i l d r e n b o r n i n 1967,
1968 and 1972. D a r l e n e Wilson p r e s e n t e d h e r p e t i t i o n f o r
d i s s o l u t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on September 27, 1977,
a l l e g i n g t h a t h e r m a r r i a g e w i t h r e s p o n d e n t was i r r e t r i e v a b l y
broken and f u t h e r a l l e g i n g t h a t it was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t
of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n t o be i n h e r custody. On Octo-
b e r 4 , 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d p e t i t i o n e r temporary
c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n and o r d e r e d r e s p o n d e n t t o pay $75
p e r c h i l d p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n .
The D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o a t t e n d con-
c i l i a t i o n conferences with l o c a l clergy but these conferences
proved u n s u c c e s s f u l . On February 1 4 , 1978, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d
a d i s s o l u t i o n and o r d e r e d a h e a r i n g on c h i l d c u s t o d y , c h i l d
s u p p o r t and p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . P r i o r t o t h e custody h e a r i n g
r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m i n which he a l l e g e d t h a t t h e
b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor c h i l d r e n would be s e r v e d i f he
were g r a n t e d custody.
A t t h e h e a r i n g t h e d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g without a
j u r y , took testimony on t h e l i f e s t y l e s of respondent and
p e t i t i o n e r and concluded t h a t respondent was b e t t e r s u i t e d
t o r a i s e t h e c h i l d r e n t h a n was p e t i t i o n e r . I n a "Memo of
t h e Court" d a t e d March 2 4 , 1978, t h e judge summarized h i s
view of t h e testimony r e l a t i n g t o M r s . W i l s o n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p
w i t h P a r k s and how t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p a f f e c t e d h e r a b i l i t y t o
properly r a i s e her children:
"We have r e c i t e d t h e f o r e g o i n g t o show t h a t t h e
p l a i n t i f f h a s been t r a p p e d i n a mad i n f a t u a t i o n
o v e r a comparative male s t r a n g e r , e s t a b l i s h i n g
i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s w i t h him, going s o f a r a s t o
s c a n d a l i z e h e r c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s by per-
m i t t i n g h e r d a u g h t e r t o s e e them i n bed t o g e t h e r ,
b r e a k i n g up h e r home and t h e home of h e r c h i l d r e n ,
when a t t h e o u t s e t of h e r p h i l a n d e r i n g s h e con-
fessed her love f o r t h e f a t h e r of her children.
" I n s h o r t , M r s . Wilson i s n o t a f i t and proper
person t o e n t r u s t t h r e e i n n o c e n t c h i l d r e n t o h e r
c u s t o d y , c a r e and c o n t r o l . "
I n c o n t r a s t t h e judge concluded t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s needs
f o r proper u p b r i n g i n g would be met i f custody were g r a n t e d
t o t h e i r father:
"These c h i l d r e n need a good moral atmosphere and
s u r r o u n d i n g s t o mature i n . A l l of t h e s e t h i n g s
t h e y w i l l have i n t h e home of t h e i r f a t h e r . . ."
I n i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s d a t e d March 2 4 , 1978,
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d i s t u r b e d
by t h e i r m o t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P a r k s and t h a t t h e i r
b e s t i n t e r e s t s would be s e r v e d by g r a n t i n g custody t o t h e i r
father. The c o u r t a l s o noted t h e r e s u l t s of i t s in-chambers
i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n , t h a t they p r e f e r r e d
t o l i v e with t h e i r f a t h e r .
O a p p e a l p e t i t i o n e r contends t h e c o u r t abused i t s d i s -
n
c r e t i o n by p l a c i n g emphasis on t h e moral atmosphere i n h e r
home, e s p e c i a l l y t h e m a t t e r of h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P a r k s .
She a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t s h e i s n o t a " f i t "
p a r e n t i s n o t supported by competent e v i d e n c e , b u t r a t h e r
o n l y by a n " i n d i s c r e t i o n " on h e r p a r t which " i n a s t r i c t l y
r e l i g i o u s sense c o n s t i t u t e s a s i n . . ." Petitioner c i t e s
Love v . Love ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 303, 533 P.2d 280, t o s u p p o r t
h e r argument t h a t t h e mother should be g i v e n some d e g r e e of
p r e f e r e n c e and t h e need t o show n o t o n l y t h a t t h e mother i s
u n f i t but also t h a t the father i s f i t t o care for the children.
This c o n t e n t i o n , however, must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t
of two p r i n c i p l e s which t h i s Court h a s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d .
F i r s t , t h i s Court does n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t
of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a
c h i l d custody c a s e i s t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n . The
D i s t r i c t Court has a much b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t h a n t h i s Court
t o make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of how t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w e l f a r e w i l l
be b e s t s e r v e d and t h u s t h e custody d e c i s i o n i s l e f t l a r g e l y
t o that court's discretion. Unless t h e D i s t r i c t Court h a s
c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , i t s custody d e c i s i o n w i l l n o t
be o v e r r u l e d . I n r e Marriage of Brown (1978) , Mont.
, 587 ~ , 2 d
361, 364, 35 St.Rep. 1733, 1738. Second, t h e
p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r of g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y t o t h e mother i s
never conclusive. I n s t e a d "each c h i l d custody c a s e w i l l be
d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s r a t h e r t h a n by t h e u s e of 'control-
l i n g o r conclusive presumption.'" I n r e M a r r i a g e of Tweeten
(1977) I Mont. , 563 P.2d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 4 , 34 St.Rep.
337, 341. The m a t e r n a l p r e f e r e n c e p r e s u m p t i o n s t i l l e x i s t s ,
b u t i t s u s e i s l i m i t e d t o t h o s e c a s e s i n which t h e f a t h e r
h a s n o t overcome i t by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f e v i d e n c e showing
him t o b e t h e more f i t p a r e n t t o have c u s t o d y . I n r e Mar-
r i a g e of I s l e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , - Mont. , 566 P.2d 55, 58, 34
St.Rep. 545, 548. To overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h e f a t h e r
need n o t show t h a t t h e mother i s u n f i t b u t o n l y t h a t t h e
c h i l d r e n would b e b e t t e r o f f w i t h him. I n r e M a r r i a g e of
Brown , Mont. a t , 587 P.2d a t 366, 35 St.Rep. at
1739; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f I s l e r , Mont. a t , 566 P.2d
a t 58, 34 St.Rep. a t 548. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Love h o l d s
o t h e r w i s e , i t i s no l o n g e r f o l l o w e d .
I n t h i s c a s e t h e r e c o r d shows s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o
s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Wilson c h i l -
d r e n would b e b e t t e r off w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r . S e c t i o n 48-332,
R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-212 MCA, sets f o r t h f i v e
c r i t e r i a upon which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o make
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t w i l l b e 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 r e n . These are: t h e w i s h e s of
t h e p a r e n t s a s t o custody; t h e wishes of t h e children; t h e
c h i l d r e n ' s 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 w i t h t h e i r
p a r e n t s , w i t h e a c h o t h e r , and w i t h o t h e r s who may s i g n i -
ficantly a f f e c t t h e i r best interests; the children's adjust-
ment t o home, s c h o o l and community; a n d , t h e m e n t a l and
physical h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved. From t h e
evidence presented, it i s c l e a r t h a t both p a r e n t s wish t o
have c u s t o d y of t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n . The two o l d e r c h i l d r e n
t o l d t h e d i s t r i c t judge t h a t t h e y would p r e f e r t o l i v e w i t h
their father. T h e r e was t e s t i m o n y from t h e f a t h e r t h a t t h e
children w e r e not w i l l i n g t o r e t u r n t o t h e i r mother's
t r a i l e r a f t e r weekend v i s i t s w i t h him.
The c o u r t a l s o h e a r d t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e home l i f e
t o which t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e exposed d u r i n g D a r l e n e W i l s o n ' s
temporary c u s t o d y . The p a r t i e s a r g u e a b o u t t h e e f f e c t s on
t h e c h i l d r e n of D a r l e n e ' s p e r m i t t i n g R i c h a r d P a r k s t o spend
n i g h t s with her before they w e r e married. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t a t t a c h e d some s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p as a n
i n d i c a t i o n of Darlene's f i t n e s s a s a parent. But t h e e v i -
dence does n o t s t o p with t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . The c o u r t t o o k
t e s t i m o n y o n W i l l i a m W i l s o n ' s a b i l i t i e s t o care f o r t h e
c h i l d r e n and h i s p r o p e n s i t i e s t o p r o v i d e them w i t h a p r o p e r
upbringing. W i l l i a m showed e v i d e n c e of s t e a d y monthly
income and a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s job
would n o t p r e v e n t him from k e e p i n g h i s y o u n g e s t s o n w i t h him
d u r i n g t h e day and t h a t t h e r e were o f t e n o t h e r c h i l d r e n
around a t t h e f a r m s where h e d e l i v e r s f e e d and f e r t i l i z e r .
H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had e x p e r i e n c e i n p r e p a r i n g meals
f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and g e t t i n g them o f f t o s c h o o l b e f o r e t h e
s e p a r a t i o n when h i s w i f e had t o l e a v e e a r l y i n t h e morning
f o r work. F i n a l l y , t h e c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y of h i s r e g u l a r
c h u r c h a t t e n d a n c e and h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o a s s i s t t h e c h i l d r e n
i n t h e i r m o r a l and s p i r i t u a l development. The c h i l d r e n w i l l
have t o spend some t i m e i n day c a r e a t t h e end of e a c h
s c h o o l day i f t h e i r f a t h e r h a s c u s t o d y , which, from t h e
r e c o r d , would a p p a r e n t l y n o t be n e c e s s a r y i f t h e y s t a y e d
w i t h t h e i r mother. I n b a l a n c e , t h e c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e
f a t h e r i s b e t t e r s u i t e d t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of
the children.
w h i l e a r e l a t i o n s h i p such a s Darlene Wilson had w i t h
~ i c h a r d a r k s may n o t i n i t s e l f be a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a
P
f i n d i n g of h e r u n f i t n e s s a s a p a r e n t , e s p e c i a l l y i n a change
o f custody proceeding, Foss v . L e i f e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 97,
550 P.2d 1309, t h e D i s t r i c t Court should n o t be d i r e c t e d t o
i g n o r e a p a r e n t ' s a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e home. I n any e v e n t , t h e
scope of t h i s review remains l i m i t e d and t h e i s s u e i s n o t
whether t h e evidence shows t h e mother t o be u n f i t b u t o n l y
whether t h e evidence s u p p o r t s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c h i l -
d r e n ' s w e l f a r e would be b e s t served by g r a n t i n g custody t o
the father. I n t h i s c a s e i t does. There i s no showing by
p e t i t i o n e r t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court m a n i f e s t l y abused i t s
d i s c r e t i o n by g r a n t i n g custody t o t h e f a t h e r , a l t h o u g h i t
may n o t have been n e c e s s a r y t o c h a r a c t e r i z e Darlene Wilson
a s an u n f i t parent.
P e t i t i o n e r ' s second i s s u e d e a l s w i t h t h e o f f - r e c o r d
i n t e r v i e w which t h e judge h e l d w i t h t h e two o l d e s t Wilson
children. A t t h e r e q u e s t of William Wilson d u r i n g t h e
custody h e a r i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n t e r v i e w e d t h e c h i l d r e n
i n chambers. They were accompanied by T e r r i S t a n i s i c h , a
guidance c o u n s e l o r a t t h e i r s c h o o l . N r e c o r d was made, and
o
n e i t h e r p a r e n t was r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h i s meeting. At a
s e p a r a t e h e a r i n g b e f o r e a d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t judge, ~ e r r i
S t a n i s i c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e brought t h e c h i l d r e n i n t o t h e
chambers where t h e judge conducted t h e i n t e r v i e w . She s a i d
t h a t t h e judge f i r s t asked a g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n about s c h o o l
and t e a c h e r s , t h e n asked t h e c h i l d r e n which p a r e n t t h e y
preferred t o l i v e with.
"So t h e n h e asked them which p a r e n t , I d o n ' t
remember j u s t how he worded i t , b u t which p a r e n t
t h e y would p r e f e r t o l i v e w i t h , and t h e y answered,
t h e i r f a t h e r . Both of them, and t h e y b o t h were
nodding t h e i r head when they s a i d i t . "
Following t h e i n t e r v i e w , t h e ~ i s t r i c Court e n t e r e d a
t
finding t h a t t h e children preferred t o l i v e with t h e i r
father.
,
S e c t i o n 48-334 (1) R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-214 (1)
MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e c o u r t "may i n t e r v i e w t h e c h i l d i n
chambers t o a s c e r t a i n t h e c h i l d ' s wishes a s t o h i s c u s t o d i a n
and a s t o v i s i t a t i o n " . I t leaves t h e court discretion t o
p e r m i t c o u n s e l t o be p r e s e n t . However, i t a l s o mandates
t h a t when a c o u r t does i n t e r v i e w c h i l d r e n i n chambers, i t
" s h a l l c a u s e a r e c o r d of t h e i n t e r v i e w t o be made and t o be
p a r t of t h e r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e . " Whether t h e f a i l u r e t o
make a r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e r e q u i r e s a remand i s t h e q u e s t i o n
presented here. The l a c k of both a r e c o r d of t h e i n t e r v i e w
-a s p e c i f i c finding a s t o the children's preference
and
n e c e s s i t a t e d a remand i n I n r e Marriage of Brown, - Mont .
at , 587 P.2d a t 366, 35 St.Rep. a t 1739. See a l s o , I n
r e Marriage of Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 580 P.2d 439,
4 4 4 , 35 St.Rep. 700, 706. The r a t i o n a l e of t h e Court i n
Brown was t h a t w i t h o u t t h e s e t h i n g s , i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o
d e t e r m i n e t h e b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s custody r u l i n g :
"Without t h e r e c o r d of t h e i n t e r v i e w and
w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e wishes
of t h e c h i l d r e n , c o u n s e l and t h i s C o u r t do
n o t know w i t h any d e g r e e of c e r t a i n t y t h e
b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court's conclusion
.
on custody " - Mont. a t , 587 P.2d a t
366, 35 St.Rep. a t 1739.
While t h e p r a c t i c e of conducting o f f - r e c o r d i n t e r v i e w s i s
n o t d e s i r a b l e f o r t h e r e a s o n g i v e n i n Brown, t h e l a c k of a
r e c o r d a l o n e h a s n o t always r e q u i r e d r e v e r s a l . The p a r t i e s
t o t h e custody proceeding may even s t i p u l a t e t h a t no r e c o r d
w i l l b e made and p r o v i d e d t h e w i s h e s of t h e c h i l d r e n as t o
c u s t o d y a r e f o l l o w e d , a remand may n o t b e n e c e s s a r y . Counts
v . Chapman ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. -1 - P.2d , 36 St.Rep.
89, 93-94. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d make
a f i n d i n g a s t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w i s h e s and e n t e r e d i t s d e c r e e
according t o those wishes. The s e p a r a t e h e a r i n g i n which
T e r r i S t a n i s i c h t e s t i f i e d p r o v i d e s a view o f what happened
d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w , which s u p p o r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s
findings. Thus, t h e p a r t i c u l a r problems w i t h t h e l a c k of
f i n d i n g and r e c o r d which r e q u i r e d a remand i n Brown a r e n o t
p r e s e n t h e r e and i . t a p p e a r s t h a t a remand f o r t h e p u r p o s e of
a n " o n - r e c o r d " i n t e r v i e w would s e r v e l i t t l e p u r p o s e . Under
t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e , no remand i s n e c e s s a r y .
The d e c r e e o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y t o
W i l l i a m Wilson i s a f f i r m e d .
/ Justice
W e concur:
&a42
Chief j u s t i c e