No. 80-301
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF
TERRY W. SANDERSON,
Petitioner and Appellant,
VS .
TONETTE M. SANDERSON,
Respondent and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Fergus, Montana
Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Robert L. Johnson, Lewistown, Montana
For Respondent :
Spoja and O'Hare, Lewistown, Montana
Submitted on briefs: January 14, 1981
Decided: February 23, 1981
Filed:
M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
Husband a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of
t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t denying h i s p e t i t i o n f o r s p e c i -
f i c a t i o n of h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . The s i n g l e i s s u e p r e -
s e n t e d i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n
i n r e f u s i n g t o s p e c i f y a p p e l l a n t ' s r i g h t of v i s i t a t i o n . We
find t h a t it did.
The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e i n t h i s m a t t e r i s s e c t i o n 40-4-
217, MCA, which r e a d s i n p a r t :
" ( 1 ) A p a r e n t n o t g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d i s
e n t i t l e d t o reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s unless
t h e c o u r t f i n d s , a f ter a h e a r i n g , t h a t v i s i t a t i o n
would endanger s e r i o u s l y t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l ,
mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h .
" ( 3 ) The c o u r t may modify a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r
denying v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s whenever m o d i f i c a t i o n
would s e r v e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d ; b u t
the court shall not r e s t r i c t a parent's visita-
t i o n r i g h t s unless it f i n d s t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n
would endanger s e r i o u s l y t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l ,
mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h . "
T e r r y and T o n e t t e Sanderson w e r e m a r r i e d i n J u l y of
1974. T h e i r m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d F e b r u a r y 5 , 1979. The
f i n a l d e c r e e awarded c u s t o d y of t h e f i v e - y e a r - o l d daughter,
T a r a , t o t h e mother w i t h r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n g r a n t e d t o
the father. A t t h e t i m e of t h e d i s s o l u t i o n and b r i e f l y
t h e r e a f t e r , t h e S a n d e r s o n s l i v e d i n Lewistown, Montana.
The f a t h e r c u r r e n t l y r e s i d e s i n Montana. The mother and
d a u g h t e r have moved t o S a l t Lake C i t y , Utah.
I n A p r i l of 1980 t h e f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e c r e e r e q u e s t i n g s p e c i f i c a -
t i o n of h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . A h e a r i n g was h e l d J u n e
1 8 , 1980, and t e s t i m o n y from b o t h p a r e n t s was h e a r d . The
o r d e r denying t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n was e n t e r e d J u l y 1 7 , 1980.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t concluded i t would be 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 t o remain i n t h e c u s t o d y of t h e mother,
and t h e f a t h e r s h o u l d r e t a i n h i s " r i g h t of r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t -
ation." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o d e f i n e t h e meaning
of r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n .
Under s e c t i o n 40-4-217 ( 3 ) , MCA, t h e t r i a l c o u r t may
modify v i s i t a t i o n whenever m o d i f i c a t i o n would s e r v e t h e b e s t
i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . Concomitantly, t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l
p a r e n t s h o u l d n o t be r e s t r i c t e d u n l e s s v i s i t a t i o n would
endanger t h e c h i l d .
A t t h e t i m e of t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e " r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a -
t i o n r i g h t s " w e r e workable b e c a u s e b o t h p a r e n t s r e s i d e d i n
Lewistown. The mother, by moving t o S a l t Lake C i t y , Utah,
p u t 600 m i l e s between f a t h e r and c h i l d . The p r a c t i c a l
e f f e c t h a s been t o r e s t r i c t t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n . Winn
v. Winn ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 618 P.2d 870, 871, 37 St.Rep.
1734, 1736. The p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n -
ship with the child i s beneficial. The f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n
r i g h t s s h o u l d be d e f i n e d a l l o c a t i n g s u f f i c i e n t t i m e f o r t h e
f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n s o t h a t a meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p c a n be
nurtured .
A s p e c i f i c a t i o n of v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y
a m o d i f i c a t i o n of d e c r e e . Husband's r i g h t s i n t h i s c a s e
would n o t be expanded, b u t r a t h e r would be d e f i n e d w i t h
particularity. Here a c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y . ~ivard
v . R i v a r d ( 1 9 6 9 ) , &75 Wash.2d 415, 451 P.2d 677.
T h i s c a u s e i s remanded, and 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 s p e c i f y a r e a s o n a b l e s c h e d u l e of v i s i t a t i o n f o r
the father.
W e concur:
TL-4 &, &&!4
Chief J u s t i c e