No. 80-454
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1981
I N THE MATTER OF
J. L. F. a n d H. A. F.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District,
I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e ,
The I i o n o r a b l e Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
C o u n s e l o f Record:
For Appellant:
P e t e r s o n Law O f f i c e s , B i l l i n g s , Montana
F o r Respondent :
H a r o l d H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana
O l s e n , C h r i s t e n s e n & G a n n e t t , B i l l i n g s , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : F e b r u a r y 25, 1 9 8 1
Decided : APR 6 -~aa
Filed :
--
WPR c - l$M
6"
' 7
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s from a c u s t o d i a l h e a r i n g h e l d in
t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h e Honorable Diane
G. Barz p r e s i d i n g . The c a s e was t r i e d on t h e p e t i t i o n o f
t h e S t a t 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 S e r v i c e s
(SRS) t o h a v e JLF and HAF d e c l a r e d y o u t h s i n need o f c a r e
and to have their permanent care, custody and control
awarded t o t h e S t a t e o f Montana w i t h a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s e n t t o
their adoption. The natural mother was present at the
h e a r i n g and r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . The p u t a t i v e f a t h e r o f
JLF predeceased t h e h e a r i n g , and t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r o f HAF
was s e r v e d w i t h l e g a l n o t i c e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g b u t f a i l e d t o
appear. F o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t
Court granted the relief requested by SRS and entered
judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . The n a t u r a l m o t h e r now a p p e a l s .
JLF, a boy, was b o r n on J a n u a r y 7 , 1974. A t that
time, h i s mother, t h e a p p e l l a n t , was s i x t e e n y e a r s o f a g e ,
unmarried and living with her mother. JLF and a p p e l l a n t
remained i n her m o t h e r ' s house f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x months
before moving into their own apartment. Appellant's
i n d e p e n d e n t l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t , h o w e v e r , was o n l y t e m p o r a r y ,
and she s o o n moved back with her mother. This pattern
c o n t i n u e d f o r t h e n e x t few y e a r s - - a p p e l l a n t moving i n and
out of her mother's house, changing her residence on
numerous occasions. During this period, appellant of t e n
c a l l e d upon h e r m o t h e r t o p r o v i d e b a b y s i t t i n g s e r v i c e s , in
a d d i t i o n t o placing JLF with her for extended p e r i o d s of
time .
I n May 1977 a p p e l l a n t s u f f e r e d a n e r v o u s breakdown
and was a d m i t t e d t o t h e p s y c h i a t r i c ward o f t h e Deaconess
Hospital in Billings, Montana. A p p e l l a n t was h o s p i t a l i z e d
f o r s i x weeks a f t e r which s h e was r e l e a s e d t o a l o c a l m e n t a l
h e a l t h g r o u p home f o r e i g h t a d d i t i o n a l weeks. As a result
of t h e breakdown, a verbal a g r e e m e n t was r e a c h e d w i t h SRS
whereby appellant allowed JLF to stay with his maternal
grandmother until it was determined that appellant could
adequately provide for h i s care.
A p p e l l a n t was r e h o s p i t a l i z e d d u e t o h e r m e n t a l h e a l t h
in October 1977 and again in November 1978; thus, JLF
continued to remain primarily in the care of his
grandmother. A p p e l l a n t was again hospitalized for mental
h e a l t h r e a s o n s i n A u g u s t 1 9 7 9 , a f t e r becoming p r e g n a n t w i t h
t h e i n f a n t HAF.
HAF was born February 5, 1980. Because SRS was
concerned over appellant's ability to care for a newborn
baby, t e m p o r a r y i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y was a p p l i e d f o r and
g r a n t e d on F e b r u a r y 6 , 1 9 8 0 . The i n f a n t HAF was p l a c e d i n a
f o s t e r home upon h e r r e l e a s e from t h e h o s p i t a l .
JLF, now s i x y e a r s o f age, continued t o r e s i d e with
h i s grandmother. I n March 1 9 8 0 , h o w e v e r , a p p e l l a n t demanded
t h a t he be r e t u r n e d t o h e r c u s t o d y . Not h a v i n g any t y p e o f
legal custody or control at the time, the SRS c a s e w o r k e r
r e t u r n e d JLF t o h i s m o t h e r ' s home on a s u p e r v i s e d b a s i s .
I n A p r i l 1980 SRS f i l e d t h e p e t i t i o n t o h a v e JLF and
HAF declared youths in need of care. A hearing on the
petition was held in July 1980. During this time JLF
remained under the care of appellant on a continued
supervised basis. The p e t i t i o n was e v e n t u a l l y g r a n t e d , and
judgment was entered on September 24, 1980, awarding the
p e r m a n e n t c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f the children t o the
S t a t e o f Montana.
The s o l e issue presented on appeal is whether the
District Court abused its discretion by terminating the
parental rights of appellant and awarding the permanent
c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f J L F and HAF t o 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 S e r v i c e s .
This Court has held t h a t t h e burden of proof in a
t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a c t i o n i s upon t h e S t a t e t o
p r o v e by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a t
i s s u e a r e abused o r n e g l e c t e d . See Matter of J L B (1979),
Mont. , 594 P.2d 1 1 2 7 , 36 S t . R e p . 896. This Court,
however, h a s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r i m a r y d u t y of d e c i d i n g
t h e proper custody of a c h i l d r e s t s with t h e D i s t r i c t Court.
All reasonable presumptions concerning the c o r r e c t n e s s of
that court's determination w i l l be made, and t h e d e c i s i o n
w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s i t i s shown t h a t t h e
D i s t r i c t Court c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . M a t t e r o f LFG
(197911 Mont . , 598 P.2d 1 1 2 5 , 36 S t . R e p . 1547; I n
r e G o r e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 3 2 1 , 570 P.2d 1 1 1 0 .
H e r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t J L F and HAF w e r e
y o u t h s i n need o f c a r e and t e r m i n a t e d t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f
appellant. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t b a s e d t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on a
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e n e g l e c t e d and a b u s e d .
In support of the District Court's findings,
considerable evidence was presented, including the
following:
Dr. M a r i a n F. M a r t i n , a c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t who h a s
been t r e a t i n g J L F , t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e c h i l d was p l a c e d
i n t h e c u s t o d y o f a p p e l l a n t i n March 1980 h e began t o show
s i g n s of emotional d e t e r i o r a t i o n . Dr. M a r t i n o b s e r v e d t h a t
a p a s t p r o b l e m w i t h e n c o p r e s i s had i n c r e a s e d and t h a t JLF
had become f i d g e t y , d i s t r a c t i b l e , s u l l e n and w i t h d r a w n . She
a l s o o b s e r v e d t h a t J L F was n o t k e p t c l e a n and had a s t r o n g
odor d u e t o t h e e n c o p r e s i s . Dr. Martin, a l t h o u g h s h e had
limited contact with appellant, further t e s t i f i e d t h a t since
appellant was failing to provide for the emotional and
p h y s i c a l n e e d s o f J L F , s h e would a l s o b e u n a b l e t o m e e t t h e
n e e d s o f h e r newborn b a b y , H A F .
Dr. Ned Tranel, a clinical psychologist who held
t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s e s s i o n s w i t h a p p e l l a n t b e t w e e n J a n u a r y 1980
and F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 0 , t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t was d i a g n o s e d a s
a pseudo neurotic schizophrenic and that, although her
c o n d i t i o n may e v e n t u a l l y s t a b i l i z e , i t was n o t l i k e l y t h a t
any i m p r o v e m e n t s c o u l d be made. Dr. T r a n e l was a l s o o f t h e
opinion that appellant was suffering from minimal brain
disfunction due to drug abuses and, as a result of her
overall condition, she would not be able to accurately
comprehend o r r e s p o n d t o t h e n e e d s o f h e r c h i l d r e n .
It should be noted that appellant attacks the
c r e d i b i l i t y o f Dr. T r a n e l by p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t i n F e b r u a r y
1980 h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t m i g h t be c a p a b l e o f r a i s i n g
one, b u t n o t both, of h e r c h i l d r e n . Dr. T r a n e l t e s t i f i e d ,
however, that he was merely speculating about the
p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p p e l l a n t r a i s i n g b o t h c h i l d r e n and t h a t a t
the time he still had considerable misgivings about her
ability to raise e v e n one c h i l d , a l t h o u g h i t was w o r t h a
try.
A l i c e N i c k o l o f f , t h e c o u n t y s o c i a l worker a s s i g n e d t o
work with the family, concurred with Dr. Martin's
observations of JLF's deterioration. Nickoloff also
attested to appellant's inability to provide for the
physical and emotional needs of her children. In
p a r t i c u l a r , s h e n o t e d a d i s i n t e r e s t by a p p e l l a n t i n g e t t i n g
o u t of bed t o p r e p a r e J L F ' s m e a l s , t o c l e a n him o r t o g e t
him o f f t o school. S h e was a l s o o f the opinion, although
n o t r e c a l l i n g any s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t bad enough t o remove t h e
child on the spot, that JLF was being neglected, if not
abused.
The children's maternal grandmother testified that
she had observed appellant engage in physically abusive
behavior towards JLF on several different occasions.
Examples o f s u c h b e h a v i o r i n c l u d e d t h e e x c e s s i v e s t r i k i n g o f
t h e c h i l d w i t h a b e l t and a b o a r d , as w e l l as pulling his
h a i r and b i t i n g him a s m e t h o d s o f i m p o s i n g d i s c i p l i n e . The
grandmother further testified that appellant failed to
p r o p e r l y f e e d , c l o t h e and s u p e r v i s e t h e c h i l d .
S e c t i o n 41-3-102, MCA, d e f i n e s abused o r neglected a s
follows:
" ( 2 ) An ' a b u s e d o r n e g l e c t e d c h i l d ' means a
c h i l d whose n o r m a l p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l h e a l t h
o r w e l f a r e is harmed o r t h r e a t e n e d w i t h harm
by t h e a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f h i s p a r e n t o r
other person responsible f o r h i s welfare.
" ( 3 ) 'Harm t o a c h i l d ' s h e a l t h o r w e l f a r e '
means t h e harm t h a t o c c u r s whenever t h e
parent or other person responsible for t h e
c h i l d ' s welfare:
" ( a ) i n f l i c t s o r a l l o w s t o be i n f l i c t e d upon
the child physical or mental injury,
including i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t of
e x c e s s i v e c o r p o r a l punishment;
"(b) ...
" ( c ) causes f a i l u r e t o t h r i v e or otherwise
f a i l s t o s u p p l y t h e c h i l d w i t h a d e q u a t e food
or f a i l s t o supply clothing, shelter,
e d u c a t i o n , or h e a l t h c a r e , though f i n a n c i a l l y
a b l e t o do s o o r o f f e r e d f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r
r e a s o n a b l e means t o d o s o ;
" ( 8 ) ' M e n t a l i n j u r y ' means a n i d e n t i f i a b l e
and s u b s t a n t i a l i m p a i r m e n t o f t h e c h i l d ' s
i n t e l l e c t u a l or psychological functioning."
Based upon examination of the offered evidence, in
relation t o t h e d e c l a r e d p o l i c y of this State t o promote
normal childhood development and to provide for the
p r o t e c t i o n o f c h i l d r e n whose h e a l t h and w e l f a r e a r e , o r may
be, a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by t h e c o n d u c t o f t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r t h e i r c a r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d J L F and HAF a b u s e d
or neglected as those terms are defined above. Upon
reviewing the record, this Court now finds there is
substantial credible evidence to support the District
Court's conclusion, and, t h u s , a c l e a r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n
h a s n o t been e s t a b l i s h e d .
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t ~ o u r f ~ a fs i r m e d .
i f
i
'
2
C "
Justice