No. 79-58
IN THE SURPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
CARRIE M. MORRELL, previously known
as CARRIE M. GIESICK,
Petitioner and Appellant,
ROBERT LEE GIESICK,
Respondent and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Rosebud.
Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Phyllis A. Bock, argued, Montana Legal Services, Miles
City, Montana
For Respondent :
John S Forsythe argued, Forsyth, Montana
Submitted: April 15, 1980
Decided: MY14
Filed: --
hffiy 14 13m
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 of
t h e Court.
C a r r i e M. M o r r e l l a p p e a l s from a summary judgment
e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of R o b e r t Lee G i e s i c k . The judgment,
e n t e r e d by t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t , S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
t
Rosebud County, p r e c l u d e d M o r r e l l from c h a l l e n g i n g G i e s i c k ' s
c u s t o d y of M o r r e l l ' s c h i l d , Sandy J o e G i e s i c k .
Sandy J o e w a s b o r n on J u l y 21, 1974. Morrell i s l i s t e d
on Sandy J o e ' s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e as t h e mother b u t no f a t h e r
i s named. Sandy J o e ' s surname o n t h e b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e was
B a e r t s c h , M o r r e l l ' s maiden name. According t o G i e s i c k , h e
and M o r r e l l were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r and h a v i n g s e x u a l i n t e r -
c o u r s e a t t h e t i m e Sandy J o e was c o n c e i v e d . M o r r e l l , how-
e v e r , m a i n t a i n s s h e had n o t even m e t G i e s i c k a t t h e t i m e
Sandy J o e w a s c o n c e i v e d and M o r r e l l was d a t i n g and h a v i n g
s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h Darrell C a n f i e l d .
C a n f i e l d d i d c o n t r i b u t e $360 towards t h e m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Sandy J o e ' s d e l i v e r y .
On Thanksgiving 1974, M o r r e l l t o l d G i e s i c k he was n o t
Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Morrell t o l d Giesick t h i s again
i n J u l y 1975 and r e p e a t e d i t numerous t i m e s t h e r e a f t e r .
I n December 1974, M o r r e l l and G i e s i c k were m a r r i e d i n
S h e r i d a n , Wyoming. G i e s i c k took Sandy J o e i n t o h i s home,
o p e n l y h e l d h e r o u t a s h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d and a l l o w e d h e r t o
use h i s surnane.
A t some p o i n t , M o r r e l l s i g n e d a "Consent To Custody And
G u a r d i a n s h i p " t r a n s f e r r i n g Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l
t o M o r r e l l ' s p a r e n t s , George and Dorothy B a e r t s c h . In
November 1975, M o r r e l l and G i e s i c k j o i n t l y p e t i t i o n e d f o r a
w r i t of habeas c o r p u s t o s e c u r e Sandy J o e ' s r e t u r n from
Morrell's parents. The p e t i t i o n r e c i t e d t h a t M o r r e l l and
~ i e s i c k e r e Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t s .
w Subsequently,
M o r r e l l ' s p a r e n t s v o l u n t a r i l y r e t u r n e d Sandy J o e , and t h e
p e t i t i o n was d i s m i s s e d .
M o r r e l l and G i e s i c k s e p a r a t e d s e v e r a l t i m e s d u r i n g
t h e i r marriage. The l a s t s e p a r a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n May 1976,
when M o r r e l l took t h e c h i l d r e n , Sandy J o e and A y Marie
m
G i e s i c k , t o Oklahoma. I n l a t e December 1976, t h e c h i l d r e n
were r e t u r n e d t o Montana and p u t i n t o G i e s i c k ' s c u s t o d y .
The c h i l d r e n have l i v e d i n Montana w i t h G i e s i c k and h i s
second w i f e s i n c e t h a t t i m e .
On March 24, 1977, G i e s i c k o b t a i n e d a d i s s o l u t i o n o f
h i s m a r r i a g e w i t h M o r r e l l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Rosebud
County. M o r r e l l was s e r v e d by p u b l i c a t i o n . G i e s i c k was
g i v e n c u s t o d y o f Sandy J o e and A y Marie under t h e d e f a u l t
m
judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . No i s s u e h a s been
r a i s e d here regarding t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e marriage d i s s o l u -
tion itself.
On March 29, 1979, M o r r e l l f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n t o s e t
a s i d e t h e c h i l d custody provision i n t h e d e f a u l t marriage
d i s s o l u t i o n decree. The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d G i e s i c k p o s s i b l y
committed a f r a u d upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t by a l l e g i n g i n t h e
d i s s o l u t i o n p e t i t i o n t h a t Sandy J o e was " b o r n of t h e m a r -
riage." The p e t i t i o n a l s o a l l e g e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t l a c k e d
j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award G i e s i c k c u s t o d y of Sandy J o e s i n c e
M o r r e l l w a s s e r v e d by p u b l i c a t i o n .
G i e s i c k moved f o r summary judgment which was g r a n t e d on
September 26, 1979. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h e d i s s o l u t i o n
c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award G i e s i c k c u s t o d y of t h e
c h i l d r e n s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were i n Montana a t t h e t i m e t h e
d i s s o l u t i o n p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d and t h e r e was no i r r e g u l a r i t y
i n service of p r o c e s s . Next, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d M o r r e l l
was b a r r e d by e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and res j u d i c a t a from c h a l -
lenging t h e d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e ' s custody provision.
Upon a p p e a l , M o r r e l l c h a l l e n g e s t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e
summary judgment i t s e l f a s w e l l a s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y . W e affirm
t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
According t o M o r r e l l , g e n u i n e issdrs o f m a t e r i a l f a c t
remain u n r e s o l v e d , and G i e s i c k was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a judg-
ment a s a m a t t e r of law. The c o n t e n t i o n i s w i t h o u t m e r i t .
M o r r e l l a d m i t s G i e s i c k t o o k Sandy J o e i n t o h i s home, o p e n l y
h e l d h e r o u t a s h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d , and a l l o w e d h e r t o u s e
h i s surname. Morrell a l s o admits her r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e
1975 p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of habeas c o r p u s t h a t G i e s i c k i s
Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Moreover, M o r r e l l a d m i t s s h e
has acquiesced f o r almost f i v e y e a r s i n Giesick's being
Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . C e r t a i n l y , G i e s t c k . h a s changed
h i s p o s i t i o n i n r e l i a n c e on M o r r e l l ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and
long acquiescence. T h e r e f o r e , having a d m i t t e d t h e n e c e s s a r y
e l e m e n t s , M o r r e l l i s e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g G i e s i c k i s n o t
Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r .
M o r r e l l i s a l s o b a r r e d by l a c h e s from a s s e r t i n g G i e s i c k
i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . M o r r e l l c l a i m s t o have
known f o r o v e r f i v e y e a r s t h a t G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s
natural father. Y e t , Morrell waited f o r over t h r e e y e a r s
a f t e r G i e s i c k was awarded Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y t o b r i n g a
p e t i t i o n f o r modification. During t h i s p e r i o d , Sandy J o e
h a s undoubtedly become a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e ~ i e s i c k
family.
F i n a l l y , M o r r e l l i s b a r r e d by res j u d i c a t a from assert-
i n g t h a t G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t . The
r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s M o r r e l l was v a l i d l y s e r v e d by p u b l i c a -
t i o n and i n f a c t had n o t i c e of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . Thus,
M o r r e l l had h e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h a l l e n g e G i e s i c k ' s p a t e r n i t y
of Sandy J o e , y e t s h e f a i l e d t o a p p e a r .
M o r r e l l n e x t c o n t e n d s Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y c o u l d n o t
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y be determined without personal j u r i s d i c t i o n
over Morrell. M o r r e l l a s s e r t s h e r due p r o c e s s r i g h t s have
been v i o l a t e d . T h i s c o n t e n t i o n a l s o h a s no m e r i t .
M o r r e l l ' s c o n t e n t i o n s a r e based on a m i s r e a d i n g of May
v . Anderson ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed.
1221. While t h e language of t h i s o p i n i o n i s v e r y b r o a d ,
most c o u r t s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n have l i m i t e d t h e
h o l d i n g t o where b o t h t h e c h i l d and t h e d e f e n d i n g p a r e n t a r e
n o t i n t h e rendering s t a t e a t t h e t i m e of t h e custody pro-
ceeding. S e e , e - g . , Worland v . Worland (N.M. 1 9 7 6 ) , 551
P.2d 981, and Bush v . Bush (Okl. 1 9 5 6 ) , 299 P.2d 155. The
Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n i t s e l f i n d i c a t e s t h i s i s t h e p r o p e r
interpretation. May v. Anderson, s u p r a , 345 U.S. a t 534 n. 8.
L i m i t i n g t h e e f f e c t of t h e M a y d e c i s i o n i n t h i s manner
a l s o makes good s e n s e . O t h e r w i s e , t h e c o n v e n i e n c e of a
l e a v e - t a k i n g p a r e n t i s p l a c e d above t h e w e l f a r e of t h e
child. The s i t u a t i o n becomes such t h a t one s t a t e c a n n o t
b i n d t h e f a t h e r and a n o t h e r s t a t e c a n n o t b i n d t h e mother.
P o s s e s s i o n becomes n o t merely n i n e - t e n t h s o f t h e law b u t a l l
o f t h e law. S e l f - h e l p becomes t h e u l t i m a t e remedy, and t h e
l a w of c u s t o d y i s r e d u c e d t o a r u l e o f s e i z e and r u n .
B a t c h e l o r v . F u l c h e r (Ky. 1 9 6 7 ) , 415 S.W.2d 828, 832-33
(Osborne, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) .
Morrell f i n a l l y contends t h e custody provision i n t h e
d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e i s v o i d s i n c e Sandy J o e i s n o t G i e s i c k ' s
n a t u r a l c h i l d and t h e r e h a s n o t been a p r o p e r showing of
c h i l d a b u s e , n e g l e c t o r dependency. A s n o t e d above, ~ o r r e l l
i s b a r r e d by e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and res j u d i c a t a from assert-
i n g G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t .
Having found no e r r o r , t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t
Court i s affirmed.
W e concur:
7!~& w 4
$, 9 Chief J u s t i c e
~!@'9dwu,
Justices 0