NO. 82--119
I N THE SUPfiEME COURT CF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1982
I N THE MATTER O F
M.N., R.N., B.N., S.N. a n d W . N . ,
N e g l e c t e d a n d Dependent c h i l d r e n .
1 from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n a n d f o r t h e County o f F e r g u s , The H o n o r a b l e
R. D. B l c P h i l l i p s , 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 A p p e l l a n t :
T o r g e r S. Oaas, Lewistown, Montana
C r a i g R. B u e h l e r , Lewistown, Montana
For Respondent:
B r a d l e y B. P a r r i s h , Lewistown, Montana
William E. B e r g e r , Lewistown, Montana
Submitted on B r i e f s : J u l y 1, 1982
Decided: August 11, 1982
Filed:
AUG 11 1982
Mr. ~ u s t i c eGene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a p p e a l w a s b r o u g h t by Mrs. Ann S p a r k s , the paternal
grandmother of the five N. children, who intervened to seek
c u s t o d y of her grandchildren. She s e e k s t o h a v e t h e j u d g m e n t ,
e n t e r e d by t h e H o n o r a b l e R. D. McPhillips, i n t h e District Court
of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l District, g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y of t h e f i v e N.
c h i l d r e n 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
(SRS) .
The n a t u r a l parents of the f i v e N. children, M.N., R.N.,
B.N., S.N., and W . N . , h a v e had p r o b l e m s c a r i n g f o r and r a i s i n g
t h e c h i l d r e n o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d of time. They h a v e had c o n t a c t
w i t h w e l f a r e a g e n c i e s i n two o t h e r s t a t e s p r i o r to t h e i r a r r i v a l
i n Montana. The N . f a m i l y came to F e r g u s C o u n t y , Montana, to
avoid contact with the welfare authorities in the State of
Washington. D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d t h e f a m i l y was i n F e r g u s C o u n t y ,
t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d , W. N . , was d e c l a r e d d e p e n d e n t and n e g l e c t e d ,
b u t was r e t u r n e d t o h i s n a t u r a l p a r e n t s .
On O c t o b e r 3 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e SRS r e c e i v e d word t h a t t h e N . family
was p l a n n i n g t o l e a v e L e w i s t o w n . The SRS t o o k e m e r g e n c y c u s t o d y
of all the children at that time and has had custody since.
An adjudicatory hearing was held, pursuant to Section
41-3-404 MCA. At that hearing all five N. children were
d e c l a r e d y o u t h s i n need o f care, and t h e y r e m a i n e d i n t h e c u s t o d y
of the SRS. A dispositional hearing, required by Section
41-3-406, MCA, was h e l d ~ r i d a y , J a n u a r y 29, 1982. A t t h a t time
Mrs. Sparks, the appellant, testified s h e moved t o Montana i n
September of 1981 t o see what she could do about the kids
( g r a n d c h i l d r e n ) ; t h a t s h e was p r e s e n t l y w o r k i n g , b u t was p l a n n i n g
t o move b a c k t o W a s h i n g t o n . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w a s pre-
s e n t a t the adjudicatory hearing.
Upon completion of the dispositional hearing ,
J u d g e IYlcPhillips entered his judgment terminating the parental
rights of, G.N. and J.N, the natural parents of the f i v e N.
c h i l d r e n and a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y t o t h e SRS w i t h t h e r i g h t to con-
s e n t to a d o p t i o n . This appeal followed.
The sole issue presented to this Court for review is:
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f the five
m i n o r N. c h i l d r e n to t h e SRS, w i t h t h e r i g h t to c o n s e n t to adop-
t i o n r a t h e r t h a n to t h e i r p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , Mrs. Ann S p a r k s ?
A grandmother does not, by virtue of her status as a
grandparent, have any s u p e r i o r r i g h t of a d o p t i o n o r c u s t o d y to
t h a t of a non-relative. Graham v. Childrens Service Division,
Department of Human R e s o u r c e s , ( 1 9 7 9 ) r 39 0 r . A p p . 27, 5 9 1 P.2d
375; I n R e t h e P e o p l e o f t h e I n t e r e s t o f C. P. and D.P. Children
( 1 9 7 4 ) , 34 Colo.App, 5 4 , 5 2 4 P.2d 316; S e c t i o n 41-3-406, MCA, sup-
ports t h i s position also. It states:
" D i s p o s i t i o n a l Hearing. (1) I f a y o u t h i s f o u n d
t o be abused, neglected, or dependent under
41-3-404, the court a f t e r the dispositional hearing
may e n t e r i t s j u d g m e n t m a k i n g a n y o f t h e f o l l o w -
i n g d i s p o s i t i o n s ( e m p h a s i s added ) t o p r o t e c t t h e
w e l f a r e of t h e youth:
"(a) ...
"(b) transfer legal custody to any of the
following:
" ( i i i ) a r e l a t i v e or o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l who, a f t e r
s t u d y by a s o c i a l s e r v i c e a g e n c y d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e
c o u r t , i s found b y t h e c o u r t to b e q u a l i f i e d to
r e c e i v e and care f o r y o u t h ; .. .I1
T h i s s e c t i o n is n o t m a n d a t o r y b u t p l a c e s t h e d i s c r e t i o n i n
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w h e t h e r o r n o t t o award c u s t o d y to a r e l a t i v e .
I n t h e Matter o f T.J.D., J.L.D. and R.J.W. (1980), M ---- I
T
6 1 5 P.2d 2 1 2 , 37 S t . R p t r . 1385, 1390.
Where c u s t o d y i s c o n c e r n e d , t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n
is t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I n t h e Matter o f T.J.D., J.L.D.
a n d R. J . W . , s u p r a ; I n R e G o r e Y o u t h s i n Need of Care ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174
PIT 321, 570 P.2d 1 1 1 0 ; I n t h e Matter o f I n q u i r y i n t o J J S (1978),
1 7 6 MT 202, 577 P.2d 378; In t h e Matter o f Burgoff and Berry
( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 M 1 1 6 , 5 5 1 P.2d 656:
T In t h e Matter o f D e c l a r i n g t h e
J o n e s and P e t e r s o n C h i l d r e n D e p e n d e n t and N e g l e c t e d C h i l d r e n v.
P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 MT 1, 539 P.2d 1193. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n
t h i s case g a v e s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n to t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t
b u t was c o m p e l l e d to b a l a n c e t h i s w i t h t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the
b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n as is e v i d e n c e d by t h e C o u r t ' s Fin-
d i n g of Fact N o . IV.
"The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r o f t h e f i v e ( 5 ) c h i l d r e n ,
ANN SPARKS, h a s a s k e d f o r c u s t o d y o f a l l o r a n y
p a r t o f t h e f i v e ( 5 ) c h i l d r e n . Mrs. S p a r k s i s a
widow and 5 7 y e a r s o l d . She p r e s e n t l y w o r k s a t
E d d i e ' s C o r n e r as a c o o k f i v e ( 5 ) n i g h t s a week and
l i v e s i n Moore. Over t h e p a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) or f o u r
( 4 ) m o n t h s , s h e n o t o n l y o b t a i n e d employment b u t
h a s managed t o s a v e u p FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($500.00). M r s . Sparks p l a n s to e v e n t u a l l y r e t u r n
to Washington where she resides with her
9 0 - y e a r - o l d f a t h e r . S h e , b y n e c e s s i t y , h a s t o work
f o r a l i v i n g . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t i t would be a
b u r d e n upon Mrs. S p a r k s to award h e r c u s t o d y o f t h e
c h i l d r e n . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y
s h e would be u n a b l e t o resist t h e i n t r u s i o n s o f
b o t h J . N . and G . N . ; t h a t it would i n t h e l o n g r u n
b e c o n t r a r y to t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of s a i d c h i l d r e n
o r a n y o f them t o award c u s t o d y to Mrs. S p a r k s ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t t i m e is
somewhat o f t h e e s s e n c e and t h e p r o p e n s i t i e s o f t h e
natural parents.
" F u r t h e r , t h e Court f i n d s t h a t it is i n t h e b e s t
i n t e r e s t o f s a i d c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e y c o n t i n u e to be
p l a c e d w i t h t h e Department of S o c i a l S e r v i c e s t o
c o n t i n u e t h e e x c e l l e n t p r o g r e s s s a i d c h i l d r e n have
shown s i n c e t h e D e p a r t m e n t h a s had t h e i r c u s t o d y . "
Appellant, grandmother, contends t h a t t h e p o l i c y set o u t i n
s e c t i o n 4 1 - 3 - 1 0 1 ( l ) ( d ) , MCA, o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e u n i t y and w e l f a r e
of the family whenever possible, was not followed by the
District Court. But, as t h i s C o u r t h a s made abundantly c l e a r
i n its p r i o r d e c i s i o n of I n R e t h e Matter o f I n q u i r y i n t o JJS,
supra, " [ F l a m i l y u n i t y need n o t be p r e s e r v e d a t t h e e x p e n s e of
t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t interest,'' 5 7 7 P.2d a t 382.
I n t h e p r e s e n t case b o t h t h e g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e SRS p r e -
s e n t e d e v i d e n c e as t o t h e i r a b i l i t y t o s e r v e t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t
interest. The SRS p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s i n d i -
v i d u a l n e e d s o u t w e i g h e d t h e i r need to r e m a i n t o g e t h e r . Contrary
to this, Mrs. Sparks brought in a p s y c h o l o g i s t who testified
that separation of siblings causes damage to their emotional
development and, therefore, i t would be b e t t e r f o r t h e c h i l d r e n
t o p l a c e them w i t h Mrs. S p a r k s . T h e r e was a l s o con£ l i c t i n g e v i -
d e n c e i n o t h e r areas c o n c e r n i n g Mrs. S p a r k s 1 a b i l i t y to r a i s e t h e
children. C o n c e r n was a l s o v o i c e d as Mrs. S p a r k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t
she wishes to return to S e d r o Wooly, W a s h i n g t o n , with the
children, which is only 50 miles from where the children's
natural parents are now living, that the children might be
r e t u r n e d t o them.
I n considering a l l the evidence t o g e t h e r with such f a c t o r s
as M r s . Sparks1 age, l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t and need t o work, the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment f i n d i n g it i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t
of the children t h a t c u s t o d y be awarded to t h e SRS, with the
right to consent to adoption. The District Court's findings
e n j o y a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , and s i n c e t h e r e i s 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 i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t h i s judgment, w e can-
not and do not interfere with Judge McPhillipsl judgment.
.&
The j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is ,&irmed.
J u's t i c e
,
W e concur:
pA--e-4wcltDweQJ
Chief J u s t i c e