No. 85-06
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1985
IN RE THE LWRRIAGE OF
LYNDA SUE BROWN,
Petitioner and Appellant,
and
DAVID WAYNE BROWN,
Respondent and Respondent.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin,
The Honorable Thomas Olson, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
McKinley Anderson, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent :
Ronald A. Saper, Phoenix, Arizona
Submitted on Brief: June 13, 1985
necid,ed: September 1 0 , 1985
Filed: SEP 1d 1985
*,Ad t
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson delivered t h e Opinion o f the
Court.
The p e t i t i o n e r appeals from a n o r d e r o f the D i s t r i c t
Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l District, G a l l a t i n County,
s t a y i n g a l l p r o c e e d i n g s i n Montana a n d d e f e r r i n g t o A r i z o n a ' s
jurisdiction with regard t o t h e custody o f minor c h i l d r e n .
We affirm.
Oavid Wayne Brown, respondent, and Lynda S u e Brown,
p e t i t i o n e r w e r e m a r r i e d on F e b r u a r y 2 ? , 1982 i n Utah. They
had two children before separating early i n 1984. A t the
t i m e of t h e s e p a r a t i o n t h e y r e s i d e d i n Arizona. However, t h e
p e t i t i o n e r l e f t A r i z o n a a n d came t o Montana w i t h t h e y o u n g e s t
c h i l d sometime i n e a r l y 1984. A p p a r e n t l y , on J u l y 1 4 , 1984,
although t h e d a t e i s i n q u e s t i o n , s h e r e t u r n e d t o Arizona i n
o r d e r t o b r i n g t h e o l d e r c h i l d back w i t h h e r t o Montana. The
respondent a l l e g e s p e t i t i o n e r accomplished t h i s by e n t e r i n g
his residence with three unknown males who assaulted him
w h i l e s h e removed t h e c h i l d . During a telephone conference
on the question of jurisdiction, counsel for petitioner
s t a t e d t o t h e c o u r t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r r e s i d e d i n Arizona from
a b o u t O c t o b e r 1982 t h r o u g h J u n e 1 9 8 4 .
On July 13, 1984, the respondent petitioned the
S u p e r i o r Court o f Arizona f o r a dissolution of t h e marriage
between himself and the petitioner. S e r v i c e was initially
accomplished t h r o u g h p u b l i c a t i o n and on September 1 4 , 1984,
by registered mail. The respondent also petitioned the
Arizona c o u r t f o r temporary custody o f t h e c h i l d r ~ na n d f o r
child support from the petitioner. Although she received
n o t i c e on A u g u s t 9 , 1 9 8 4 o f a show c a u s e h e a r i n g i n A r i z o n a
on a n o r d e r f o r t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y a n d s u p p o r t , t h e p e t i t i o n e r
did not appear or respond. The A r i z o n a court, after the
h e a r i n g on August 1 3 , 1 9 8 4 , awarded t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f t h e
c h i l d r e n t o t h e respondent.
The petitioner filed for a legal separation from
r e s p o n d e n t i n Montana on J u l y 2 0 , 1984. She r e q u e s t e d , and
was granted, temporary custody of the children by the
Montana c o u r t t h a t same d a y p e n d i n g a h e a r i n g .
The respondent moved to dismiss the Montana court's
temporary order on October 18, 1984 on the grounds that
Arizona had jurisdiction because the f a m i l y had r e s i d e d in
Arizona for an extended time prior to the filing of the
action and b e c a u s e the children were f o r c i b l y removed from
Arizona. On O c t o b e r 2 6 , 1 9 8 4 , t h e Montana and A r i z o n a c o u r t s
j o i n t l y o r d e r e d a n o r a l argument on t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
t o t a k e p l a c e by t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e on November 5 , 1984.
Both judges and counsel for petitioner and respondent
p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e conference.
O November
n 19, 1.984, t h e j u d g e s signed a j o i n t order
conferring jurisdiction of the custody issue in Arizona;
staying proceedings in Montana; setting a hearing for
December 2 7 , 1984 on t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t b e f o r e
a n A r i z o n a d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s judge; ordering the petitioner
t o be personally present a t the hearing; and ordering the
minor c h i l d r e n t o b e p r e s e n t i n A r i z o n a on o r p r i o r t o t h e
hearing date.
P e t i t i o n e r a p p e a l s t h i s o r d e r and r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g
issues:
(1) Should Montana t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine t h e
c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n ?
(2) Was t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u i r e d t o a p p o i n t c o u n s e l
f o r t h e minor c h i l d r e n ?
(3) Were t h e p e t i t i o n e r o r t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n d e n i e d
due p r o c e s s o r any o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ?
(4) Was the petitioner entitled to an evidentiary
h e a r i n g i n Montana?
The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA)
addresses jurisdiction i n c u s t o d y c a s e s w h e r e more t h a n o n e
state has an interest in the litigation. According to
S 40-7-104, MCA, we look to the provisions of S 40-4-211,
MCA, t o determine whether a s t a t e has a sufficient interest
to take jurisdiction.
(1) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e c o m p e t e n t t o
decide child custody matters has
jurisdiction t o make a c h i l d c u s t o d y
d e t e r m i n a t i o n by i n i t i a l or m o d i f i c a t i o n
decree i f :
(a) this state:
( i ) i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e child a t
the time of commencement of the
proceedings; or
( i i ) h a d b e e n t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e
w i t h i n 6 m o n t h s b e f o r e commencement o f
t h e p r o c e e d i n g and t h e c h i l d i s a b s e n t
from t h i s s t a t e b e c a u s e o f h i s removal o r
retention by a person claiming his
c u s t o d y o r f o r o t h e r r e a s o n and a p a r e n t
o r person a c t i n g a s parent continues t o
live i n t h i s s t a t e ; o r
f b ) it i s i n 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 t h a t a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e assume
j u r i s d i c t i o n because:
(i) t h e c h i l d and h i s p a r e n t s o r t h e
c h i l d and a t l e a s t one c o n t e s t a n t have a
s i g n i f i c a n t connection with t h i s s t a t e ;
and
(ii) t h e r e i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s s t a t e
substantial evidence concerning the
child's present or future care,
protection, training, snd personal
relationships; o r
(c) t h e c h i l d i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t in
t h i s s t a t e and:
(i) h a s b e e n abandoned; o r
( i i ) it i s n e c e s s a r y i n a n e m e r g e n c y t o
p r o t e c t him b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n s u b j e c t e d
t o o r threatened with mistreatment o r
abuse o r i s neglected o r dependent; o r
(d) (i) no o t h e r s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n
under prerequisites s u b s t a n t i a 1l y in
accordance with subsections (1) ( a ) ,
(1) (b), o r (1) ( c ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n ...
In the case a t bar, Montana i s n o t t h e home s t a t e of the
c h i l d r e n a n d was n o t t h e i r home s t a t e w i t h i n t h e p r i o r s i x
months. Both p a r t i e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e family resided i n
Arizona from 1982 until June 1984. Thus Montana cannot
assume jurisdiction under (1) ( a ) of fj 40-4-211, MCA.
Further, neither child has any s i g n i f i c a n t p a s t connection
with this state. They never resided i n Montana prior to
their mother's return in June or July 1984. While some
evidence about the children's current and possible future
c a r e i s i n Montana, a n y e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p r i o r c a r e ,
protection, t r a i n i n g , a n d p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s would b e i n
their resident state, Arizona, r a t h e r t h a n Montana. Thus,
Montana cannot assume jurisdiction under (1) ( b ) of
S 40-4-211, MCA. (1)( c ) requires the child's physical
p r e s e n c e a n d e i t h e r abandonment o r t h e n e c e s s i t y o f e m e r g e n c y
protection. Petitioner does not suggest abandonment and
a l l e g e s n o e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n t h a t would r e q u i r e M o n t a n a ' s
jurisdiction rather than Arizona's jurisdiction. Finally,
A r i z o n a was t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e s i d e n c e a n d home s t a t e a n d c o u l d
and did take jurisdiction under subsection (1)( a ) , thus
subsection ( l ) ( d ) p r o v i d e s n o a u t h o r i t y f o r Montana t o a s s u m e
jurisdiction.
Even assuming Montana has the authority under this
section t o hear t h i s custody b a t t l e , several p r o v i s i o n s of
UCCJA would confer jurisdiction in the Arizona court.
S e c t i o n 40-7-107(1), MA provides:
C
A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may n o t e x e r c i s e
i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s chapter i f a t
the t i m e of filing the petition a
proceeding concerning t h e custody o f t h e
c h i l d was p e n d i n g i n a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r
state exercising jurisdiction
s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n conformity with t h i s
chapter u n l e s s t h e proceeding i s stayed
h7 t h e c o u r t o f t h e o t h e r s t a t e because
1
t h i s s t a t e i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e forum o r
f o r o t h e r reasons.
Here, the proceedings i n Arizona, the s t a t e of residence,
were filed prior to those i n Montana and Arizona had not
stayed i t s proceedings. Thus, u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n t h e Montana
court properly declined t o exercise i t s jurisdiction.
Section 40-7-108, MCA permits a court t o decline to
exercise jurisdiction if it f i n d s t h a t a n o t h e r s t a t e i s a
more a p p r o p r i a t e forum. The f a c t o r s t h a t may be c o n s i d e r e d
i n c l u d e which s t a t e i s o r r e c e n t l y was t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e
and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of evidence in the other state. The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o s t a y p r o c e e d i n g s would h a v e b e e n
proper under t h i s s t a t u t e a s well. W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t
Court correctly stayed Montana proceedings and correctly
ordered, in conjunction with the Arizona court, that
j u r i s d i c t i o n rests i n A r i z o n a .
S e c t i o n 40-4-205, MCA s t a t e s :
[ T l h e c o u r t may a p p o i n t a n a t t o r n e y t o
represent the interests of a minor
dependent c h i l d with respect t o h i s
s u p p o r t , c u s t o d y , and v i s i t a t i o n ...
The s o l e c o n c e r n o f t h e c o u r t below was w h e t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n
t o determine t h o s e i s s u e s should be i n Montana o r A r i z o n a .
S e c t i o n 40-4-205, MCA a p p l i e s t o t h e s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s , n o t
to the question of jurisdiction. The District Court
committed no error in n.ot a p p o i n t i n g an attorney for the
children.
In the third issue, p e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t s h e and
h e r c h i l d r e n w e r e d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s , e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , and a
speedy remedy when the District Court stayed Montana's
proceedings, l e a v i n g A r i z o n a ' s c o u r t s y s t e m a s t h e o n l y forum
f o r h e r claims. She s u p p o r t s t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s by d i r e c t i n g
our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e lack of testimony, cross-examination and
proper h e a r i n g i n Arizona. Petitioner's action in failing t o
a p p e a r a f t e r n o t i c e was t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e l a c k o f t e s t i m o n y
and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . The A r i z o n a forum r e m a i n s open t o h e r
and, if respondent fails to proceed, then the door to
M o n t a n a ' s c o u r t s y s t e m w i l l open. W e find these contentions
without m e r i t .
Finally, petitioner argues that UCCJA c o n f l i c t s with
the "best interests of the child" test enunciated in
S 40-4-212, MCA and t h a t t h e telephone conference regarding
jurisdiction was not adequate as an evidentiary hearing.
There is no conflict between the rules for determining
jurisdiction when two s t a t e s have a n i n t e r e s t i n a c u s t o d y
matter and the rules for determining custody. One is a
p r o c e d u r a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o t h e p r o p e r forum, made p r i o r
t o any s u b s t a n t i v e i n q u i r y , and t h e o t h e r i s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
of substantive rules. The telephone conference addressed
only the procedural issue, thus evidence concerning the
parental a b i l i t i e s of t h e p a r t i e s o r a l l e g e d misconduct o f
e i t h e r would have been unnecessary and inappropriate. We
hold that no e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was required under these
circumstances.
The o r d e r 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 .
"
1
Justice,
/'
We c o n c u r : H