No. 85-03
I N THE SUPREI4E COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA
1985
I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F
MARY J O OBERGFELL,
P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t ,
and
PAUL DOUGLAS OBERGFELL,
R e s p o n d e n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
A P P E A L FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S e v e n t h 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 C o u n t y of R i c h l a n d ,
T h e H o n o r a b l e R. C. M c D o n o u g h , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL O F RECORD:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Utick, G r o s f i e l d & Uda; Joan U d a , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a
For R e s p o n d e n t :
Peter 0 . M a l t e s e , Sidney, M o n t a n a
-- -----
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : June 2 8 , 1985
Decided: September 18, 1985
----
Clerk
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
This is an appeal by the wife from an order of custody
and division of marital property made by the District Court
of the Seventh Judicial District, Richland County, the Honor-
able R. C. McDonough presiding. We affirm.
Mary Jo and Paul Obergfell were married in 1973. Two
children were born of the marriage, namely Ryan and Randall
who were ten years of age and eight years of age, respective-
ly, at the time of the hearing.
In 1980, after a period of separation and an unsuccess-
ful reconciliation attempt, Mrs. Obergfell left the family
home in Sidney, Montana, and moved to Billings, Montana, with
Ryan and Randal 1. Shortly after her move to Billings, Mrs.
Obergfell filed her petition for dissolution of marriage in
Richland County. While is Billings, Mrs. Obergfell completed
her degree in special education and in 1984 accepted a posi-
tion as a special education instructor at the Boulder River
School and Hospital in Boulder, Montana. The boys have lived
continuously with Mrs. Obergfell during the school year and
with their father during the summer months since the couple
permanently separated in 1980.
Paul Obergfell continues to live in the Sidney area and
has been employed by Montana-Dakota Utilities for the past 11
years. His current residence is a mobile home which is
located 15 miles southeast of Sidney on his father's farm.
Mrs. Obergfell's petition for dissolution of marriage
requested that she be awarded custody of the two minor chil-
dren; that Paul pay her reasonable attorney's fees; and that
the parties' personal property be equitably divided. In his
response, Mr. Obergfell requested that he be awarded custody
of the two minor children; that each party bear their own
attorney's fees; and that the personal property of the
p a r t i e s be e q u i t a b l y divided.
The R i c h l a n d County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a f t e r a h e a r i n g h e l d
S e p t e m b e r 1 3 , 1 9 8 4 , d i s s o l v e d t h e m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s and
ordered i n p a r t t h e following:
1. The parents shall have joint custody of the
children.
2. The r e s i d e n c e o f e a c h c h i l d s h a l l b e w i t h t h e m o t h e r
until the end of the school year d u r i n g which that child
turns 12 years of age, after which t i m ~ , the child will
r e s i d e permanently w i t h t h e f a t h e r .
3. The f a t h e r s h a l l pay c h i l d s u p p o r t i n t h e amount o f
$175 p e r month p e r c h i l d w h i l e t h e c h i l d r e n r e s i d e w i t h t h e
mother.
4. The f a t h e r s h a l l h a v e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g
the summer school vacation months while the children are
s t i l l r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e mother, s u b j e c t t o t h e mother's r i g h t
t o h a v e t h e c h i l d r e n f o r a 10-day p e r i o d d u r i n g s u c h summer
months.
5. The m o t h e r shall have one-month summer visitation
w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e r e s i d e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n h a s b e e n
transferred permanently to the father. In addition, the
children s h a l l a l t e r n a t e holidays with t h e parents.
6. The marital estate consists solely of personal
p r o p e r t y which h a s been e q u i t a b l y d i v i d e d .
7. T h a t e a c h p a r t y i s t o p a y h i s o r h e r own l e g a l f e e s ,
and t h e f a t h e r i s t o pay t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a t t o r n e y .
In light of the above District Court order, Mrs.
O b e r g f e l l p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s f o r review:
1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n
changing physical custody of each o f t h e minor children of
the parties from t h e m o t h e r t o the f a t h e r when e a c h c h i l d
reaches the age of 12 y e a r s and in severely limiting the
m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n w i t h o u t f i n d i n g harm t o t h e c h i l d r e n from
the visitation?
2. Whether 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
o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e ?
3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award
Mrs. Obergfell her attorney's fees incurred i n t h i s matter?
I n a d d r e s s i n g t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . Obergfell,
both parties recognize in their briefs the standard for
review o f c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e s a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s C o u r t .
In Bier v. Sherrard (Mont. 19811, 623 P.2d 550, 551, 38
St.Rep. 158, 159, w e s t a t e d :
In order t o prevail, [ a p p e l l a n t ] must
show an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e j u d g e ,
must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e i s a c l e a r
preponderance o f evidence a g a i n s t t h e
f i n d i n g s , and must overcome t h e presump-
t i o n t h a t t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t
is correct. I n reviewing t h e District
C o u r t ' s c u s t o d y o r d e r , t h i s C o u r t need
o n l y l o o k t o t h e r e c o r d t o see i f t h e
f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n S 40-4-212, MCA,
w e r e c o n s i d e r e d and t h e n must d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a p p r o p r i a t e
findings with respect t o these c r i t e r i a .
(Citations omitted.)
Section 40-4-212, MCA, provides the standard t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t must f o l l o w i n making a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n :
The c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e t h e c u s t o d y i n
accordance with t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e
child. The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l
relevant factors including: (1) t h e
wishes o f t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s
a s t o h i s custody; (2) t h e wishes of t h e
child as t o h i s custodian; (3) t h e
i n t e r a c t i o n and interrelation of the
child with h i s parent o r parents, h i s
s i b l i n g s , and a n y o t h e r p e r s o n who may
significantly affect the child's best
i n t e r e s t ; (4) t h e c h i l d ' s adjustment t o
h i s home, s c h o o l , and community; and
( 5 ) t h e m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o f
a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved.
Initially, the t r i a l c o u r t recogn.ized t h a t several of
the factors listed by S 40-4-212, MCA, equally applied to
both p a r t i e s i n determining custody. F i r s t , t h e t r i a l judge
noted t h a t both parents d e s i r e custody of t h e c h i l d r e n and
that both parents are physically and mentally able t o be
c u s t o d i a n s of the children. In addition, the trial judge
found the c h i l d r e n had adjusted t o t h e i r home, s c h o o l and
community i n B o u l d e r d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r and t h e i r home
and community i n S i d n e y d u r i n g t h e summer months. But, t h e
trial judge also recognized that several of the factors
l i s t e d by S 40-4-212 weighed h e a v i l y i n f a v o r o f t h e f a t h e r
i n determining custody.
F i r s t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t found a s t r o n g p r e f e r e n c e o f e a c h
c h i l d was t o l i v e w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r i n S i d n e y on t h e farm.
The f i n d i n g s show t h a t b o t h b o y s e n j o y and d e s i r e t h e f a r m
l i f e s t y l e and t h a t it i s t h e i r t r u e w i s h t o l i v e w i t h t h e i r
father.
Second, the trial court found that while the boys'
interrelationship and interaction with both parties was
normal and h e a l t h y , t h e b o y s d i d e x p r e s s some n e g a t i v e f e e l -
i n g s a b o u t t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r and d e s i r e d
n o t t o l i v e w i t h h e r i n Boulder. Also, t h e c o u r t considered
t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e b o y s w i t h o t h e r
p e o p l e who may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t . The
record i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l l four o f t h e boys' grandparents l i v e
i n t h e S i d n e y a r e a , a l o n g w i t h a s s o r t e d m a t e r n a l and p a t e r n a l
c o u s i n s , a u n t s and u n c l e s .
This Court recognizes t h a t i n considering t h e f i n d i n g s
issued by the D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h e g u i d e l i n e s l i s t e d by
S 40-4-212, MCA, there are factors that point favorably
toward t h e m o t h e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g c u s t o d y o f t h e b o y s . Howev-
e r , a s t h i s C o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n Gilmore v . Gilmore ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6
Mont. 4 7 , 5 1 , 530 P.2d 480, 482:
The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f d e c i d i n g c u s t o d y i s
a d e l i c a t e one which i s l o d g e d w i t h t h e
d i s t r i c t court. The j u d g e h e a r i n g o r a l
testimony i n such a controversy h a s a
s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining t h e
same, and h i s d e c i s i o n o u g h t n o t t o b e
d i s t u r b e d e x c e p t on a c l e a r showing o f
abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . [Citing cases. ]
T h e r e f o r e , we hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court adequately consid-
e r e d t h e g u i d e l i n e s l i s t e d i n 5 40-4-212, and d i d n o t a b u s e
i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding t h e f a t h e r custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n
when t h e y r e a c h 12 y e a r s o f a g e .
S i m i l a r l y , we hold t h a t t h e District Court d i d n o t abuse
its discretion when determining the mother's visitation
schedule. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f v i s i t a t i o n was
not punitive i n nature, a s t h e mother s u g g e s t s , but rather
f o c u s e d upon what t h e t r i a l c o u r t considered t o be i n t h e
best i n t e r e s t of t h e children.
The second i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . Obergfell i s whether 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 o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n . c e . I n response t o t h i s i s s u e , we
note t h i s Court w i l l n o t set a s i d e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s
of f a c t u n l e s s shown t o b e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . Rule 5 2 ( a ) ,
M.R.Civ.P., MCA, states i n pertinent part:
Findings o f 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 of t h e
t r i a l c o u r t t o judge t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of
t h e witnesses.
Furthermore, findings of f a c t a r e not c l e a r l y erroneous
i f s u p p o r t e d 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 determine whether 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" t h e find-
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.
(Citations omitted.) Although c o n f l i c t s
may e x i s t i n t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , it
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 s u c h c o n f l i c t s . His
f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l
where t h e y a r e based on s u b s t a n t i a l
though c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. (Citations
Omitted. )
Olson v. W e s t f o r k P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 154, 557
W e conclude t h a t 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
on t h e r e c o r d , a s e x p l a i n e d u n d e r i s s u e number o n e t o s u p p o r t
the findings of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law o f t h e D i s t r i c t
Court. Therefore, w e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court ' s determina-
t i o n o f c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n .
The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . O b e r g f e l l i s whether t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s .
The a w a r d i n g o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a r e g o v e r n e d by S 40-4-110,
MCA, which s t a t e s :
The c o u r t from t i m e t o t i m e , a f t e r con-
sidering t h e financial resources of both
p a r t i e s , may o r d e r a p a r t y t o pay a
r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r t h e c o s t t o t h e
o t h e r p a r t y of maintaining o r defending
any p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r c h a p t e r s 1 and 4 o f
this t i t l e and f o r a t t o r n e y ' s fees,
i n c l u d i n g sums f o r l e g a l s e r v i c e s r e n -
d e r e d and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e
commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g o r a f t e r
e n t r y o f judgment. The c o u r t may o r d e r
t h a t t h e amount b e p a i d d i r e c t l y t o t h e
a t t o r n e y , who may e n f o r c e t h e o r d e r i n
h i s name.
This Court has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e awarding o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s
under this statute is c l e a r l y permissive. See I n Re the
M a r r i a g e of C a r l s o n (Mont. 19841, 693 P.2d 496, 4 1 St.Rep.
2419. Furthermore, t h e record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t
was well appraised of the financial resources of both
parties. T h e r e f o r e , w e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e
t r i a l c o u r t i n d i r e c t i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o p a y t h e i r own a t t o r -
ney's fees.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W e concur: