No. 85-154
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1985
I N THE PATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF
3. S . R., a minor child.
APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h 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 C o u n t y of Y e l l o w s t o n e ,
T h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t H o l m s t r o m , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Herndon, H a r p e r & M u n r o ; J a m e s G. Edmiston, R i , l i n g s ,
Montana
For Respondent:
Moses L a w F i r m ; S t e p h e n Moses a n d J a y F. Lansing,
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 : J u n e 1 9 , 1 9 8 5
Decided: September 24, 1985
Filed: SEP 2 4.11985
&/&&!&.--/
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber 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 .
S t e p f a t h e r a p p e a l s a judgment o f 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 which d e n i e d h i s p e t i t i o n f o r t h e a d o p t i o n o f
E.S.R. W e affirm.
The i s s u e s a r e :
1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t m o t h e r
and father had entered into an oral agreement modifying
f a t h e r ' s d u t y t o p a y $125 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R.
2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e
o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t was a p r o p e r b a s i s f o r i t s con-
c l u s i o n t h a t f a t h e r had s u p p o r t e d E.S.R. during t h e previous
year, so his c o n s e n t was n e c e s s a r y u n d e r § 40-8-111 (1)( a ) ,
MCA?
Mother and f a t h e r w e r e divorced in 1980. Mother was
g r a n t e d s o l e c u s t o d y o f t h e two m i n o r c h i l d r e n , a boy and a
g i r l (E.S.R.). The f a t h e r ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was s e t
a t $125 p e r month p e r c h i l d .
In January o r February o f 1982, t h e boy w e n t t o live
with his father for s i x months. During t h a t period, the
mother agreed t o suspend t h e b o y ' s child support obligation
of $125 p e r month. T h i s a g r e e m e n t was l a t e r r e d u c e d t o a n
order of the court.
Father testified that mother a7.so orally agreed to
s u s p e n d t h e g i r l ' s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n b e c a u s e e a c h p a r e n t was
totally s u p p o r t i n g one child. The m o t h e r denied any such
agreement.
S t e p f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t o a d o p t E.S.R. and p l e d t h a t t h e
c o n s e n t o f t h e f a t h e r was e x c u s e d u n d e r S 40-8-111(1) ( a ) ( v ) ,
MCA, by f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e
child during a period of 1 year before the f i l i n g of the
petition.
The D i s t r i c t Court found that the natural p a r e n t s had
o r a l l y modified the child support agreement. The D i s t r i c t
Court concluded that the father had supported E.S.R. by
t o t a l l y s u p p o r t i n g t h e boy and t h u s h i s c o n s e n t was n e c e s s a r y
under 40-8-111 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA.
By s t a t u t e , a c h i l d c a n n o t b e a d o p t e d w i t h o u t t h e n a t u -
r a l parents1 consent, subject t o c e r t a i n exceptions. Section
40-8-111. (1) ( a ) ( v ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
(1) An a d o p t i o n o f a c h i l d may b e de-
c r e e d when t h e r e h a v e b e e n f i l e d w r i t t e n
c o n s e n t s t o a d o p t i o n e x e c u t e d by:
(a) both parents, i f l i v i n g ... pro-
v i d e d t h a t c o n s e n t i s n o t r e q u i r e d from a
f a t h e r o r mother:
(v) i f it i s proven t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n
o f t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r o r mother,
if able, has not contributed t o the
support of t h e c h i l d during a period of 1
year before the f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n for
adoption; ...
The p r i n c i p a l i s s u e i s w h e t h e r f a t h e r h a s c o n t r i b u t e d t o
t h e support of E.S.R. In order f o r t h e s t e p f a t h e r t o pre-
vail, h e m u s t h a v e p r o v e d 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 f a t h e r "has not contributed t o t h e support of t h e c h i l d
d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f one y e a r p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i -
t i o n and ... [ f a t h e r ] had t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e . . ."
S e e M a t t e r o f A d o p t i o n o f R.A.S. (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 6 7 9 P.2d 220,
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t m o t h e r and
f a t h e r had e n t e r e d i n t o an o r a l a g r e e m e n t m o d i f y i n g f a t h e r ' s
d u t y t o p a y $ 1 2 5 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R.?
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t 11 s t a t e s :
The e v i d e n c e regarding the agreement
between t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s o f t h e m i n o r
child i s i n dispute; a f t e r considering
t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e demeanor o f t h e
p a r t i e s while t e s t i f y i n g , t h e Court f i n d s
t h a t t h e weight of t h e evidence supports
t h e testimony of t h e f a t h e r t h a t such an
a g r e e m e n t was made and t h e C o u r t f i n d s
t h a t s u c h a n a g r e e m e n t d i d e x i s t between
t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s o f t h e minor c h i l d
and t h a t t h e f a t h e r ... i n reliance
upon s a i d a g r e e m e n t , d i d n o t make t h e
c h i l d s u p p o r t payments s p e c i f i e d i n t h e
d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n and had s u c h an
a g r e e m e n t n o t been i n e x i s t e n c e , h e would
h a v e made t h e payments f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f
t h e minor c h i l d a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e
decree of dissolution.
This Court w i l l n o t reverse t h e D i s t r i c t Court unless
the findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a),
M.R.Civ.P., states in pertinent part:
Findings of f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e
u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and d u e r e g a r d
s h a l l be given t o t h e opportunity o f t h e
t r i a l c o u r t t o judge o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y
of t h e witnesses.
Findings o f f a c t a r e not c l e a r l y erroneous i f supported
by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e :
This Court's function ... is not t o
s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n p l a c e o f t h e
t r i e r o f f a c t s b u t r a t h e r it i s " c o n f i n e d
t o determining whether t h e r e i s substan-
t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support" t h e
f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law.
Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t in the
e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , i t i s t h e d u t y and
f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e
such c o n f l i c t s . H i s findings w i l l n o t be
d i s t u r b e d o n a p p e a l where t h e y a r e b a s e d
on substantial though conflicting
evidence.
I n re t h e S u p p o r t o f Rockman (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , P.2d I 42
Father testified that mother never requested child
support payments after she orally agreed to suspend the
g i r l ' s support obligation. The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s e v i d e n c e t h a t
f a t h e r was c u r r e n t i n h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n t i l t h e
t i m e t h e agreement took p l a c e . Mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e
was n e v e r a n o r a l a g r e e m e n t , s h e s i m p l y g o t t i r e d o f f i g h t i n g
w i t h f a t h e r o v e r h i s d u t y t o s u p p o r t E.S.R. However, m o t h e r
did t e s t i f y that her a t t o r n e y had told her that i f father
f a i l e d t o make payments f o r one y e a r h i s c o n s e n t would n o t b e
n e c e s s a r y i n t h e s t e p f a t h e r ' s a d o p t i o n o f E.S.R.
The r e c o r d indicates t h a t mother's a t t o r n e y had knowl-
edge o f father's belief i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an o r a l a g r e e -
ment. In October 1982, father's attorney sent mother's
a t t o r n e y a l e t t e r i n response t o pending l i t i g a t i o n o v e r t h e
property settlement. Among o t h e r things, the l e t t e r made
r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o r a l agreement modifying t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t
obligation. Mother t e s t i f i e d s h e n e v e r saw t h e l e t t e r .
We conclude the record contains substantial credible
evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's finding of an o r a l
agreement modifying father's child support obligation of
E.S.R.
Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e o r a l
m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t was a p r o p e r b a s i s f o r i t s c o n c l u s i o n
t h a t f a t h e r had s u p p o r t e d E.S.R. during t h e previous year, so
h i s c o n s e n t was n e c e s s a r y u n d e r S 4 0 - 8 - 1 1 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA?
Mother c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t i s
an improper basis for concluding the f a t h e r has supported
E . S. R. because v e r b a l modification of c h i l d support decrees
is prohibited u n d e r S 40-4-208(2) ( b ) , MCA. That contention
m i g h t b e a p p r o p r i a t e i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t were c o n s i d e r i n g
w h e t h e r t h e a g r e e m e n t would b e e n f o r c e a b l e i n a n a c t i o n t o
r e c o v e r p a s t due c h i l d s u p p o r t payments. However, that is
not t h e i s s u e before t h i s Court. Essentially, the issue is
w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r h a s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R.
so t h a t h i s c o n s e n t was r e q u i r e d p r i o r t o a d o p t i o n .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n o f law 2 s t a t e s :
That ... [father] has contributed t o
t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R. during t h e period
o f one (1) y e a r b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e
P e t i t i o n f o r Adoption and h i s c o n s e n t t o
t h e adoption i s t h e r e f o r e necessary.
I n a n accompanying memorandum, t h e D i s t r i c t Court gave
its rationale:
I t i s t h e C o u r t ' s view t h a t u n d e r t h e
agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s , both p a r t i e s
have continued t o contribute t o the
s u p p o r t o f b o t h c h i l d r e n and t h e m e r e
f a c t t h a t t h e y h a v e c o n t r a c t e d w i t h one
a n o t h e r t o assume a p o r t i o n o f e a c h
o t h e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n d o e s n o t lessen t h e
f a c t t h a t they a r e contributing t o the
support of each of t h e children.
A s stated previously, t h e standard o f review i s whether
t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e c o u r t ' s
conclusion.
The record contains evidence that the oral agreement
provided e a c h p a r e n t would t o t a l l y s u p p o r t one c h i l d . Al-
though the father did not actually give t h e mother child
s u p p o r t payments, h i s c o n d u c t o f t o t a l l y s u p p o r t i n g one c h i l d
was, by agreement, the equivalent of financial support f o r
both children.
We conclude t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o
support the District Court's conclusion that father had
s u p p o r t e d E.S.R. during t h e previous year, s o f a t h e r ' s con-
s e n t was n e c e s s a r y u n d e r § 40-8-111(1) ( a ) , MCA.
W e affirm.
W e concur
/
1
Justices