NO. 81-472
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1982
I N THE MATTER OF M.M. ,
Youth i n Need o f Care.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f M i s s o u l a , The H o n o r a b l e
J o h n S. Henson, 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:
Ann C. German, U o f M S c h o o l o f Law, M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
For Petitioner/Kespondent, State:
R o b e r t L. Deschamps, 111, County A t t o r n e y , M i s s o u l a ,
Montana
R u s s e l l E. C a t e r , Dept. o f S.R.S, H e l e n a , Montana
T e r r y A. W a l l a c e , M i s s o u l a , )lantana ( F o r R . M . )
F o r G u a r d i a n Ad L i t e m :
J o h n R i d d i o u g h , M i s s o u l a , Montana
/
L
Submitted on B r i e f s : A p r i l 8 , 1982
Decided: S e p t e m b e r 9 , 1982
Filed:
Mr. Chief Juscice Prank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
Following a series of hearings in a child abuse and
neglect proceeding, the District Court of Missoula County
determined that M.M. was a youth in need of care and awarded
her father permanent custody with specified visitation
rights granted her mother. The mother appeals. We affirm.
M.M. is the only child of the marriage. She was
sixteen-months-old at the time of the District Court's order
from which this appeal is taken. Following the birth of
M.M. a stressful marital situation for the mother developed
caused primarily by the couple's deteriorating financial
situation and their inability to communicate effectively
with one another. As a result, the mother began to take out
her irritation on M.M. by yelling and screaming at her,
shaking her crib and walker, and slapping her. The father
did not say or do anything to ease the situation.
On August 29, 1988, the mother went to the Department
of Social and Rehabilitation Services in Missoula to seek
help in caring for the infant. M.M. was placed in foster
care with the consent of her mother and father. The mother
was placed in a counseling program at the Western Montana
Regional Community Health Center. On September 8, 1980, the
Missoula County attorney filed a petition for temporary
investigative authority and protective services. The
District Court granted the petition and appointed a guardian
ad litem for P4.M.
Shortly thereafter the parents separated and eventu-
ally divorce proceedings were filed.
The mother continued the counseling program for
approximately six months and periodic reports were made to
the court by a social worker and two clinical psychologists.
In the meantime, both the mother and father filed motions to
dismiss the state's temporary investigative authority
because a custody hearing was pending in the collateral
divorce proceedings. On March 6, 1981, the parents, the
guardian ad litem, the Department of Social and Rehabilita-
tion Services and the attorneys for all parties stipulated
in writing that the motions of the parents for temporary
custody of M.M. and dismissal of the petitions for temporary
investigative authority were withdrawn, that M.M. was a
youth in need of care, that M.M. would remain in foster care
pending the dispositional hearing, and that a dispositional
hearing would be held on March 31, 1981.
On March 31 the hearing commenced and four witnesses
testified: Linda Walrath, a social worker for SRS; Dr. Dean
Biesemeyer, a clinical psychologist; Dr. H. A. Walters, a
clinical psychologist; and Diane Haddon, a psychiatric
social worker.
Diane Haddon testified in substance that during some
eighteen sessions of counseling the mother had gained signi-
ficantly in her ability to respond to M.M. Is needs, had
become more confident and relaxed with M.M. and in her
mothering abilities, and had increased her ability to handle
stress to the point where the witness no longer saw a risk
of abusive behavior by the mother toward M.M.
Dr. Biesemeyer stated that in his opinion the mother
had made progress in handling her personal problems but had
not resolved them. He testified that the mother's problems
were emotional upset and turmoil that gets out of control
under stress to the point where she can no longer be respon-
sible to the child. Dr. Biesemeyer testified in substance
that if W.M. were placed in the mother's custody, the mother
would require a strong supportive home environment with her
parents or stepparents, attendance at parenting classes,
monitoring by SRS, and continuing psychotherapy. He stated
that among other things, the mother's problems are related
to a family history of abuse.
Ur . Biesemeyer testified that the father 's problems
involved an apparent inability to meet the emotional and
aesthetic needs of M.M., a passive attitude in his relation-
ship to the mother, and perhaps a low IQ.
Dr. Walters' testimony and opinions concerning the
mother paralleled those of Dr. Biesemeyer. He did not
conduct an examination or evaluation of the father.
Linda Walrath testified that the mother demonstrated
appropriate behavior toward M.M. during her home visits and
that both parents cared for M.M. and used appropriate disci-
pline toward M.M. She recommended that the mother receive
custody of M.M. and that the father receive liberal visita-
tion rights. The basis of this recommendation was that the
mother recognized her problem, sought help at the risk of
losing the child, participated in the counseling sessions
and tried to implement the recommendations in order to
become a better mother, while the father failed to recognize
that a problem existed and remained passive.
The hearing was continued on April 15. At that time
the court heard testimony from the mother, her mother, and
social workers Miriam Morgan and Diane Haddon. The hearing
was again continued to July 13.
In the meantime the visitation schedule of each of the
p a r e n t s w i t h M.M. was m o d i f i e d , f o s t e r c a r e was e l i m i n a t e d
i n f a v o r of M.M. s t a y i n g a l t e r n a t e l y with each p a r e n t f o r
four-day periods under SRS supervision, and the social
w o r k e r a s s i g n e d t o t h e c a s e was c h a n g e d f r o m L i n d a W a l r a t h
t o C a r o l LaCasse.
At the hearing on July 13, the following persons
testified: t h e m o t h e r and h e r stepfather, t h e f a t h e r and
h i s m o t h e r , s o c i a l w o r k e r s L i n d a W a l r a t h and C a r o l L a C a s s e ,
and C a s s a n d r a Kay S c h m i l l , a n e i g h b o r .
C a r o l LaCasse c o n d u c t e d home v i s i t s w i t h t h e mother
and M.M. on J u n e 26, J u l y 2 and J u l y 9. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t
on t h e f i r s t v i s i t t h i n g s went q u i t e w e l l . On t h e s e c o n d
visit, t h e mother exhibited a l o t of physical discipline
t o w a r d M.M., s l a p p i n g h e r h a n d s s i x t o e i g h t times, s p a n k i n g
h e r , t h r e a t e n i n g h e r w i t h t h e back o f h e r h a n d , r o l l i n g up a
newspaper and hitting her hands, getting into a power
s t r u g g l e w i t h M.M., and e x e r c i s i n g i n c o n s i s t e n t d i s c i p l i n e .
T h i s c a u s e d M.M. t o f l i n c h before the discipline.
LaCasse t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r was t h e o n l y p a r e n t
with any p o t e n t i a l for abusing M.M. and that the fatner
e x h i b i t e d p r o p e r b e h a v i o r toward M.M., offering her stimula-
tion, guidance and appropriate discipline. She did not
b e l i e v e t h e f a t h e r had any p o t e n t i a l f o r a b u s i n g M.M. She
recommended t h a t c u s t o d y be awarded t h e f a t h e r s i n c e h e was
the better parent.
Linda Walrath, t h e s o c i a l worker who had recommended
t h a t c u s t o d y be g i v e n t o t h e m o t h e r a t t h e March 3 1 h e a r i n g ,
t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e would c h a n g e h e r p r i o r recommendation i f
t h e mother l o s t her s u p p o r t s y s t e m o r behaved inappropri-
a t e l y t o w a r d M.M.
The f a t h e r ' s n e i g h b o r f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s , C a s s a n d r a Kay
S c h m i l l , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had d o n e b a b y s i t t i n g f o r
h e r f o r s i x y e a r s s i n c e her c h i l d r e n were i n f a n t s . She had
observed him being affectionate and providing guidance,
d i s c i p l i n e and s t i m u l a t i o n t o them.
On J u l y 20 t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d e x t e n s i v e f i n d -
i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and a n o r d e r . It granted
p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y of M.M. t o the f a t h e r , ordered t h e f a t h e r
t o e n r o l l i n a p a r e n t s k i l l s t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m and c o u n s e l i n g
a s deemed n e c e s s a r y by SRS, p r o v i d e d t h a t SRS would r e t a i n
i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y o v e r M.M. with progress reports t o
t h e c o u r t e v e r y s i x months, r e t a i n e d c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n
i n t h e c o u r t , p r o v i d e d t h a t any c u s t o d y o r d e r i n t h e d i v o r c e
p r o c e e d i n g s would n o t be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i t s o r d e r i n t h i s
proceeding, provided a d e t a i l e d v i s i t a t i o n schedule f o r t h e
mother, and p r o v i d e d f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n by a g r e e m e n t of the
parties. The m o t h e r a p p e a l s .
The m o t h e r a s s i g n s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e f o r r e v i e w on
appeal: Did the District Court abuse its d i s c r e t i o n in
denying her c u s t o d y o f M.M. i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 41-3-
1 0 1 , MCA? She c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u -
s i o n s o f l a w and o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e n o t sup-
p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e a n d t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s
o f M.M. r e q u i r e c u s t o d y be awarded t o h e r .
The g u a r d i a n a d l i t e m , t h e f a t h e r a n d SRS h a v e f i l e d
b r i e f s supporting t h e f i n d i n g s of fact, c o n c l u s i o n s of law
and o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
The statute relied upon by the mother provides in
pertinent part:
" ( 2 ) I t is t h e p o l i c y o f t h i s s t a t e t o
p r o v i d e f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of c h i l d r e n
whose h e a l t h a n d w e l f a r e a r e o r may b e
a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d and f u r t h e r t h r e a t e n 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 and p r o t e c t i o n . I t is i n t e n d e d
t h a t t h e mandatory r e p o r t i n g of such
c a s e s by p r o f e s s i o n a l p e o p l e and o t h e r
community members t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
a u t h o r i t y w i l l c a u s e t h e p r o t e c t i v e ser-
v i c e s of t h e s t a t e t o s e e k t o p r e v e n t
f u r t h e r a b u s e s , p r o t e c t and enhance t h e
w e l f a r e of t h e s e c h i l d r e n , and p r e s e r v e
f a m i l y l i f e wherever a p p r o p r i a t e . " Sec-
t i o n 4 1 - 3 - 1 0 1 ( 2 ) , MCA.
The m o t h e r argues (1) t h a t the s t a t e failed t o make
o u t a prima f a c i e c a s e , ( 2 ) t h a t t h e r e was s i m p l y n o t s u f f i -
c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c u s t o d y award t o t h e
c h i l d ' s f a t h e r , and ( 3 ) t h a t t h e w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e sup-
p o r t s a c u s t o d y award t o h e r .
W hold t h e District Court d i d not abuse its d i s c r e -
e
t i o n and i t s f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r a r e s u p p o r t e d
by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence. The test for abuse of judicial
discretion is w h e t h e r the court acted a r b i t r a r i l y without
the employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the
b o u n d s of reason. Marriage of B e r t h i a m e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont.
421, 425, 567 P.2d 1388, 1390. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r
awarding c u s t o d y of c h i l d r e n is c l o t h e d w i t h t h e presumption
of c o r r e c t n e s s . I n r e G o r e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 321, 325, 570
P.2d 1 1 1 0 , 1 1 1 2 , c i t i n g F o s s v. L e i f e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 97,
550 P.2d 1309. It is only where the District Court's
f i n d i n g s of f a c t a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e
or a mistake of law e x i s t s t h a t w e w i l l f i n d an abuse of
d i s c r e t i o n and d i s t u r b t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . I n re
G o r e , s u p r a ; I n t h e M a t t e r o f L.F.G. (1979), Mont .- I
598 P.2d 1 1 2 5 , 1 1 2 8 , 36 S t . R e p . 1 5 4 7 , 1 5 5 0 ; M a t t e r o f C.M.S.
(1979)I Mont. ,
- 609 P.2d 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 , 36 S t . R e p . 2004,
2008. The a p p e l l a n t , here t h e mother, has t h e burden of
p r o v i n g an abuse of discretion. I n Re Gore, 1 7 4 Mont. at
3 2 6 , 570 P.2d a t 1 1 1 3 .
The u n c o n t r a d i c t e d e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e p a r e n t s r e -
l i n q u i s h e d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o SRS a t t h e o u t s e t b e c a u s e
the mother was v e n t i n g her frustrations on the child by
screaming a t h e r , s h a k i n g h e r c r i b and w a l k e r , and s l a p p i n g
her. She feared she would further abuse the child and
needed h e l p t o r e l i e v e h e r stress and preven,t f u r t h e r m i s -
treatment. Both s h e and the father stipulated in writing
t h a t M.M. was a y o u t h i n n e e d o f care. On J u l y 2 , 1980,
f u r t h e r mistreatment of t h e c h i l d by t h e mother occurred.
By t h a t time t h e c h i l d had d e v e l o p e d a f l i n c h i n g r e f l e x t o
the mother's discipline. This c o n s t i t u t e s substantial evi-
d e n c e t h a t M.M. was a y o u t h i n n e e d o f c a r e as t h e D i s t r i c t
Court found .
The c a s e s c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t
t h e m o t h e r ' s p o t e n t i a l f o r abuse of t h e c h i l d should n o t be
the basis for depriving her of custody a r e not i n point.
Estell v. Estell (1975), 167 Mont. 247, 537 P.2d 1082,
i n v o l v e d a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e c u s t o d y was o r i g i n a l l y a w a r d e d t o
the paternal grandmother because neither parent could
provide adequate care for the children. When conditions
changed, c u s t o d y was a w a r d e d t h e m o t h e r . Here c o n d i t i o n s
d i d n o t change s u f f i c i e n t l y t o award c u s t o d y t o t h e mother.
f i'ngeq 2-A
S i n c l a i r v. Sinclair ( O k l a . 1 9 6 4 ) , 392 P.2d 758, a n d F r r g e m
-
v. ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 251 O r e . 458, 446 P.2d 185, simply hold
t h a t r e c o v e r y f r o m a m e n t a l i l l n e s s may e n t i t l e a p a r e n t t o
regain custody and are so factually dissimilar from the
p r e s e n t c a s e as t o b e i n a p p o s i t e .
Substantial evidence supports the District Court's
f i n d i n g o f a c o n t i n u i n g p o t e n t i a l f o r a b u s e by t h e m o t h e r .
The e v i d e n c e shows c o n t i n u i n g stress i n handling p a r e n t a l
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , l a c k of a s u p p o r t s y s t e m a f t e r h e r m o t h e r
and s t e p f a t h e r moved o u t o f t h e s t a t e , a n d a f a m i l y h i s t o r y
of abuse. A f t e r SRS e f f o r t s t o h e l p h e r w i t h h e r p r o b l e m s
f o r some t e n m o n t h s , s h e s t i l l e x h i b i t e d a t e n d e n c y t o a b u s e
M.M. The uncontradicted evidence shows no p o t e n t i a l for
a b u s e i n t h e f a t h e r and no h i s t o r y o f a b u s e i n h i s f a m i l y .
I n sum, a l l t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s d o n e i s a r g u e and q u o t e
some t e s t i m o n y t h a t would s u p p o r t a n a w a r d o f M . M . ' s custody
t o her. T h i s is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h an a b u s e of d i s -
c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n i t s f i n d i n g s .
W e f u r t h e r h o l d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made n o e r r o r
of law. The m o t h e r argues t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court should
h a v e d i s m i s s e d t h i s p r o c e e d i n g and d e t e r m i n e d c u s t o d y i n t h e
c o l l a t e r a l divorce proceedings. Not s o . "Where a c h i l d h a s
a l l e g e d l y been abused o r neglected by h i s natural parent,
t h e s t a t e h a s a c l e a r u u t y t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d by means o f
a j u d i c i a l h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d is i n f a c t
abused or neglected." I n t h e Matter of Doney ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4
Mont. 282, 285, 570 P.2d 5 7 5 , 577. Once t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n
h a s b e e n made, as i t h a s i n t h i s case, t h e c o u r t p r o c e e d s t o
a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y of the child.
S e c t i o n 41-3-406, MCA.
The remaining contentions of t h e mother involve the
s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e award of c u s t o d y
to the father rather than her. The s t a n d a r d t o b e a p p l i e d
i n determining custody is t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of the child.
I n re Gore, 1 7 4 Mont. a t 329, 570 P.2d a t 1114; M a t t e r of
Fish (1977), 1 7 4 Mont. 201, 206, 569 P.2d 924, 927. The
District Court i n its findings recognized a potential for
f u t u r e c h i l d abuse i n t h e mother, found no such p o t e n t i a l i n
t h e f a t h e r , and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t was i n t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t
i n t e r e s t t o award c u s t o d y t o t h e f a t h e r . T h i s conforms t o
t h e p o l i c y of t h e s t a t e " t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n of
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 b e a d v e r s e l y
affected and further threatened by the conduct of those
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r c a r e and p r o t e c t i o n . " S e c t i o n 41-3-
1 0 1 ( 2 ) , MCA.
The testimony of C a r o l LaCasse, Dr. Biesemeyer, and
Dr. Walters previously summarized in this opinion
constitutes substantial evidence supporting the findings,
c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y t o t h e f a t h e r . Given
t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o f a w a r d i n g t h e c u s t o d y t o t h e m o t h e r whose
b e h a v i o r had a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d t h e c h i l d and who p o s e d a
t h r e a t of continued abuse vis-a-vis a more s t a b l e n o n a b u s i v e
father, the court awarded custody to the latter. In so
doing, t h e District Court did not abuse its d i s c r e t i o n .
W e have examined a l l t h e n u a n c e s and v a r i a t i o n s of t h e
mother's contentions including the a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d i n her
b r i e f and f i n d them t o b e w i t h o u t m e r i t .
Affirmed.
W concur:
e
v n
/S
c s
, X L ~ L , ~ ~
Justices I'