No. 80-46
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
CYNTHIA A. FITZGERALD,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
TIMOTHY P. FITZGERALD, 111,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal From: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis & Clark,
The Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record :
For Appellant:
Leaphart Law Firm, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Page Wellcome, Bozeman, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: June 25, 1980
Decided : RUG 6 - 1380
M r . 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 o f
t h e Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f from a n o r d e r of t h e
. s t r i c t C o u r t denying h e r p e t i t i o n t o f i n d r e s p o n d e n t
g u i l t y of contempt and f o r payment of $4,400 i n s u p p o r t
payments t h a t a r e i n a r r e a r s .
T h i s matter began i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Lewis and
C l a r k County, F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , when t h e Honorable
V i c t o r H. F a l l e n t e r e d a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e awarding c u s t o d y
of t h e minor c h i l d t o t h e mother on A p r i l 30, 1971. The
c o u r t made t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n a s t o c h i l d s u p p o r t :
" 3 . T h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s h a l l n o t have t h e
r i g h t t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d , u n l e s s and u n t i l , h e
p a y s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k of t h i s
c o u r t , t h e s m of f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month
u
a s and f o r s u p p o r t o f t h e minor c h i l d of t h e
parties. I f and when d e f e n d a n t b e g i n s t o make
s a i d s u p p o r t payment t o p l a i n t i f f , t h e c o u r t
may, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n , modify t h i s d e c r e e t o
permit defendant t h e r i g h t t o v i s i t t h e c h i l d
a t a l l r e a s o n a b l e t i m e s and p l a c e s . "
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t found i n F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 7:
"Defendant e a r n s s u f f i c i e n t income t o pay f i f t y
d o l l a r s ($50) p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e
minor c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o . "
C o n c l u s i o n of Law No. 3 stated:
"The d e f e n d a n t s h a l l have no r i g h t t o v i s i t
s a i d c h i l d , u n l e s s and u n t i l , he p a y s t o t h e
p l a i n t i f f t h e sum of f i f t y d o l l a r s ($50) p e r
month t h r o u g h t h e c l e r k of t h i s c o u r t f o r t h e
s u p p o r t and maintenance of t h e minor c h i l d of
t h e p a r t i e s hereto. "
Respondent d i d n o t make any s u p p o r t payments between
A p r i l 1971 and September 1979. The r e c o r d s of t h e c l e r k of
t h e c o u r t i n d i c a t e t h a t he i s i n a r r e a r s i n t h e amount of
Respondent d i d n o t see t h e minor c h i l d between A p r i l
1 9 7 1 and t h e summer of 1979, e x c e p t f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d when
t h e c h i l d was a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s p a r e n t s f home i n 1978. After
t h a t meeting w i t h h i s s o n , a v i s i t a t i o n w a s e s t a b l i s h e d i n
1979 a t t h e r e q u e s t of a p p e l l a n t , r e s p o n d e n t ' s ex-wife.
When v i s i t a t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1979, r e s p o n d e n t
commenced p a y i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t . He c o n t e n d s t h a t he w i l l
c o n t i n u e t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t and wants t o see h i s minor son
on a permanent b a s i s . Following t h e v i s i t a t i o n i n 1979
a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of a r r e a r a g e which
i s t h e b a s i s of t h e c u r r e n t a c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t had n o t
p r e v i o u s l y made any a t t e m p t t o modify t h e o r i g i n a l judgment
o r m a i n t a i n any a c t i o n t o c o l l e c t t h e a r r e a r a g e under t h e
Uniform R e c i p r o c a l Enforcement of S u p p o r t A c t f o r some e i g h t
years.
Respondent c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l judgment d i d n o t
r e q u i r e t h e payment of c h i l d s u p p o r t w i t h o u t h i s b e i n g a b l e
t o s e e and v i s i t h i s minor c h i l d . S i n c e s u c h v i s i t a t i o n was
n o t e s t a b l i s h e d d u r i n g t h e e i g h t - y e a r p e r i o d , nor r e q u e s t e d
by a p p e l l a n t , h e a r g u e s t h a t i t would b e u n c o n s c i o n a b l e and
c o n t r a r y t o t h e judgment t o r e q u i r e him t o pay t h e a r r e a r a g e
set f o r t h i n the affidavit. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u b s t a n -
t i a l l y a g r e e d w i t h r e s p o n d e n t i n denying a p p e l l a n t r e l i e f .
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review:
1. Does t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e r e q u i r e t h a t r e s p o n d e n t pay
c h i l d support?
2. Does t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s a p p l y a s a d e f e n s e t o
t h e s u i t t o enforce a c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n i n t h i s case?
I n denying h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay t h e a r r e a r a g e , r e s p o n -
d e n t c o n t e n d s he had no o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d
under t h e d e c r e e u n l e s s and u n t i l h e e x e r c i s e d h i s r i g h t of
visitation. T h i s argument must be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h t h e
f i n d i n g of Judge F a l l t h a t r e s p o n d e n t w a s c a p a b l e a t t h e
t i m e of t h e d i v o r c e of p a y i n g $50 p e r month i n s u p p o r t . The
p r o v i s i o n on v i s i t a t i o n h a s no b e a r i n g whatsoever upon
r e s p o n d e n t ' s l e g a l and moral o b l i g a t i o n s t o s u p p o r t h i s
child. The d e c r e e d i d n o t and c o u l d n o t c o n d i t i o n t h e
s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n on t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t of v i s i t a -
tion. See P a t e r s o n v. P a t e r s o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 73 Wis.2d 150, 242
N.W.2d 907; R e f e r v. R e f e r ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 102 Mont. 121, 56 P.2d
750; S t a t e e x r e l . Lay v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 2 Mont.
I n e a r l i e r c a s e s t h i s C o u r t h a s spoken o u t on t h e moral
o b l i g a t i o n of p a r e n t s , and p a r t i c u l a r l y f a t h e r s , t o s u p p o r t
t h e i r children. R e f e r v. R e f e r , s u p r a ; S t a t e e x r e l . Lay
v. D i s t r i c t Court, supra. I n Lay, t h i s C o u r t , c i t i n g e a r -
l i e r opinions, noted:
". . . I t i s t h e l e g a l as w e l l a s t h e moral
d u t y of a p a r e n t t o s u p p o r t h i s minor c h i l d r e n
and t h e f a t h e r i s n o t a b s o l v e d from t h e d u t y
by a d i v o r c e from t h e i r mother. [Citations
o m i t t e d . ] Thus d e f e n d a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay
t h e r e q u i r e d money f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s
i n f a n t d a u g h t e r i s n o t simply a n o u t g r o w t h of
t h e d i v o r c e s u i t n o r i s i t a mere i n c i d e n t
t h e r e t o , b u t i t i s a s o c i a l and a p a r e n t a l
o b l i g a t i o n imposed by l a w . . ." 122 Mont. a t
71-72, 198 P.2d a t 767.
T h i s view was r e c e n t l y c i t e d and s u p p o r t e d i n Woolverton
v . Woolverton ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 490, 549 P.2d 458.
Respondent f a i l s t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e w e l l - s e t t l e d
p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e law imposes upon c i v i l i z e d men--the duty
t o p r o v i d e food and s h e l t e r a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r h i s own. It is
o n e o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s upon which Adam was bounced o u t o f t h e
g a r d e n , and i t h a s been t h e law e v e r s i n c e . C o u r t s have a n
inherent jurisdiction t o protect infants. They are wards o f
t h e government, and t h e c o u r t s a r e t o p r o t e c t t h e i r b r e a d
and b u t t e r . When d o i n g s o , t h e y do n o t t a k e t h e i r c l u e from
E l i j a h and t h e r a v e n s , b u t draw i t from t h e e a r n i n g s of t h e
father. W e find the court incorrectly applied the r u l e i n
t h i s case, and i t s judgment must be r e v e r s e d .
Concerning t h e second i s s u e , t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s , i t
a p p e a r s t h a t t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of J a n u a r y 24,
1980, f i n d s , i n e f f e c t , t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s f o r e c l o s e d from
r e c o v e r i n g t h e back c h i l d s u p p o r t by t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s
o r estoppel.
S e v e r a l matters a r e of i m p o r t h e r e . F i r s t of a l l , t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r assumes m a t t e r s n o t i n e v i d e n c e ,
i.e., t h a t a p p e l l a n t made no r e q u e s t f o r back s u p p o r t u n t i l
r e s p o n d e n t s o u g h t v i s i t a t i o n and commenced p a y i n g s u p p o r t .
The r e c o r d i s t o t h e c o n t r a r y . Respondent commenced h i s
s u p p o r t payments i n September 1979, o n l y a f t e r r e c e i v i n g a
demand l e t t e r from a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l . Second, r e g a r d l e s s
o f when o r why r e s p o n d e n t commenced making h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t
payments, he i s n o t r e l i e v e d of h i s p a s t c h i l d s u p p o r t
o b l i g a t i o n by t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s o r e s t o p p e l .
While t h i s C o u r t h a s n o t c o n s i d e r e d t h i s q u e s t i o n
p r e v i o u s l y , s e v e r a l of o u r s i s t e r s t a t e s have. W e adopt
t h e i r w e l l - r e a s o n e d o p i n i o n s f o r o u r h o l d i n g on t h i s i s s u e .
The Supreme C o u r t of Kansas, i n S t r e c k e r v . Wilkinson ( 1 9 7 6 ) ,
220 Kan. 292, 552 P.2d 979, n o t e d t h a t s u p p o r t of c h i l d r e n ,
l i k e t h e i r c u s t o d y , i s a m a t t e r of s o c i a l c o n c e r n . I t i s an
o b l i g a t i o n t h a t t h e f a t h e r owes t h e s t a t e a s w e l l as t o h i s
children. The c o u r t n o t e d :
". . . The p a r e n t a l d u t y t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e
s u p p o r t and maintenance of a c h i l d c o n t i n u e s
t h r o u g h t h e c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y , and t h e o b l i g a -
t i o n t o s u p p o r t may be e n f o r c e d by a n a c t i o n
a t any t i m e d u r i n g t h e c h i l d ' s m i n o r i t y . " 552
P.2d a t 984.
The c o u r t t h e n went on t o h o l d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t
" i n v o k e t h e d e f e n s e of l a c h e s a s a b a r t o e n f o r c e h i s moral
and l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t h i s c h i l d . "
I n a c a s e on a l m o s t a l l f o u r s t o t h i s c a s e , t h e Wiscon-
s i n c o u r t i n P a t e r s o n v. P a t e r s o n , s u p r a , a d d r e s s e d i t s e l f
t o the issue of l a c h e s a s a d e f e n s e t o a c l a i m f o r back
support. I n P a t e r s o n , t h e d e f e n d a n t had f a i l e d t o make h i s
$50 a month payment f o r a p e r i o d of n i n e y e a r s and t h e
mother d i d n o t t a k e any l e g a l a c t i o n f o r a p e r i o d of t h i r -
t e e n y e a r s , a t which t i m e s h e o b t a i n e d a n o r d e r t o show
c a u s e why t h e d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n contempt f o r
f a i l u r e t o pay a r r e a r a g e . The d e f e n d a n t p l e a d e d l a c h e s and
f u r t h e r t h a t he had been m i s l e d t o h i s d e t r i m e n t by t h e
mother's inaction. The Wisconsin c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e doc-
t r i n e of l a c h e s does n o t apply t o t h e enforcement of c h i l d
support orders:
"However, w e would f u r t h e r h o l d t h a t t h e de-
fense of laches i s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n an a c t i o n
o r proceeding brought t o secure enforcement
of a c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r i n a d i v o r c e a c t i o n . "
P a t e r s o n , 242 N.W.2d a t 910.
The Wisconsin c o u r t n o t e d t h a t even though one might
r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t t h e c u s t o d i a n t o promptly s e e k t h e e n f o r c e -
ment of a s u p p o r t o r d e r , f a i l u r e of t h e c u s t o d i a n t o do s o
d o e s n o t i n u r e t o t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p e r s o n c h o o s i n g n o t t o
make t h e payments and s t a t e d :
". . . I t may b e r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c t t h a t when
c h i l d s u p p o r t payments a r e n o t made, t h e cus-
t o d i a n , e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e s u c h payments, w i l l
s e e k compliance w i t h t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t o r d e r
. . . However, i f t h e c o u r t o r c u s t o d i a n do n o t
promptly proceed s o t o do, t h e p e r s o n c h o o s i n g
n o t t o make t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments i s n o t
t o p r o f i t o r b e n e f i t thereby. . ."242 N.W.2d
a t 910.
The P a t e r s o n c o u r t f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t t h e r i g h t s and
t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n are a t s t a k e and c a n n o t be
s a c r i f i c e d by t h e i r c u s t o d i a n ' s i n a c t i o n . The c o u r t s a i d :
"The r e a s o n i s t h a t , j u s t a s a d i v o r c e i n t h i s
s t a t e does n o t i n v o l v e o n l y t h e d i v o r c i n g
s p o u s e s , j u s t s o a n o r d e r f o r t h e c h i l d sup-
p o r t does n o t involve only t h e p a r e n t required
t o make such payments and t h e c u s t o d i a n e n t i t l e d
t o r e c e i v e them. Under t h e s t a t u t e s u c h pay-
ments a r e made f o r t h e ' s u p p o r t , maintenance
and e d u c a t i o n of t h e minor c h i l d r e n ' of t h e p a r -
ties. I n t h i s s t a t e such c h i l d r e n a r e ' i n t e r -
e s t e d and a f f e c t e d p a r t i e s ' i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n
involving t h e i r parents. The r i g h t s of such
c h i l d r e n are t o be s e r v e d and p r o t e c t e d ...
Once a c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t e r m i n a t e s , t h e
s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s b e g i n s t o r u n , b u t , t h e n
and e a r l i e r , t h e d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s d o e s n o t
apply." 242 N.W. 2d a t 910.
For t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d reasons, we f i n d t h e t r i a l c o u r t
e r r e d i n holding t h a t laches applied here.
Finally, appellant i n her brief before t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t , r e q u e s t e d t h a t i n t e r e s t be awarded w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e
back c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n . This Court i n t h e r e c e n t
c a s e of W i l l i a m s v . Budke ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. , 606 P.2d
515, 37 St.Rep. 228, h e l d :
"We h o l d t h e r e f o r e t h a t when t h e m a r i t a l d i s -
s o l u t i o n d e c r e e i s s i l e n t a s t o i n t e r e s t , such
i n t e r e s t i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o l l e c t i b l e by t h e
judgment c r e d i t o r s p o u s e on p a s t - d u e payments
f o r s u p p o r t money o r maintenance, t h e same a s
any o t h e r money judgment under s e c t i o n 25-9-
205, MCA." 606 P.2d a t 519, 3 7 St.Rep. a t 234.
On t h e b a s i s of W i l l i a m s a p p e l l a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o
r e c e i v e i n t e r e s t on c h i l d s u p p o r t payments which were due
and owing s i n c e A p r i l 1971.
The d e c i s i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e
c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r e n t r y of judg-
ment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n .
R
Justice
/i-[-Ylr -w
W e concur:
/