No. 82-63
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1982
PJ3ILIP J . MILANOVICH,
P l a i n t i f f and Appellant,
-vs-
R S M R J . MILANOVICH,
OE A Y
D e f e n d a n t and R e s p o n d e n t .
l e a l from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second 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 S i l v e r Bow, The H o n o r a b l e
Arnold Olsen, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
H u l l & S h e r l o c k ; J e f f r e y S h e r l o c k , H e l e n a , Montana
F o r Respondent:
D e i r d r e C a u g h l a n , B u t t e , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : June 3 , 1982
Decided: August 1 9 , 1982
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 .
This is an appeal by the f a t h e r and appellant, Philip J.
Milanovich, from a judgment e n t e r e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e
S e c o n d J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , S i l v e r Bow C o u n t y . This appeal deals
w i t h two m a i n p o i n t s . The f i r s t b e i n g w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
h o l d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r w a s g u i l t y o f c o n t e m p t , and i t s i m p o s i -
t i o n o f s a n c t i o n s o n him is p r o p e r l y r e v i e w a b l e by t h i s C o u r t on
appeal. The s e c o n d p o i n t d e a l s w i t h w h e t h e r t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a -
t i o n r i g h t s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n m o d i f i e d or r e m a i n e d a s t h e y o r i g i -
n a l l y were.
The p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n were d i v o r c e d o n November 7 , 1 9 7 5 .
The mother was o r i g i n a l l y granted custody of the four minor
c h i l d r e n o n l y t h r e e o f whom a r e s u b j e c t t o t h i s a c t i o n , as t h e
o l d e s t has reached t h e a g e of majority. On May 2 6 , 1976, the
p a r t i e s amended t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t and s e p a r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t ,
giving custody of t h e c h i l d r e n to t h e father. T h i s amendment
a l s o p r o v i d e d f o r v i s i t a t i o n by t h e m o t h e r e v e r y summer f o r t h e
month o f J u l y and on a l t e r n a t e h o l i d a y s . L a t e r on i t was a g r e e d
b y t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e m o t h e r would be r e q u i r e d to g i v e t h i r t y
days notice prior to all visitation. The parties were again
b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n O c t o b e r of 1979. A t that time, the
C o u r t e n t e r e d a n O r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e mother one-month's visitation
and s e t t i n g o u t h e r f u t u r e r i g h t t o have t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e
month o f J u l y each summer. This order a l s o provided t h a t she
c o u l d h a v e t h e c h i l d r e n o n e weekend p e r month w i t h t h i r t y d a y s
n o t i c e and on t h e C h r i s t m a s h o l i d a y . It f u r t h e r required that
when t h e c h i l d r e n were v i s i t i n g , a n i t i n e r a r y a l o n g w i t h a p h o n e
number and a d d r e s s w h e r e t h e c h i l d r e n c o u l d be r e a c h e d w a s t o be
provided t o the father. Apparently, d e s p i t e t h i s very s p e c i f i c
c o u r t o r d e r , t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t allowed to v i s i t t h e i r mother
f o r C h r i s t m a s 1979.
The p a r t i e s a g a i n amended the property settlement i n 1981.
T h i s amendment e x t i n g u i s h e d t h e f a t h e r ' s a l i m o n y o b l i g a t i o n . At
t h e same time t h i s amendment was f i l e d , a l e t t e r , s i g n e d b y b o t h
parties, was f i l e d . It stated t h a t t h e m o t h e r waived h e r J u l y
1 9 8 1 v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i n r e t u r n f o r b e i n g a b l e t o accompany t h e
father and children on a two-week summer v a c a t i o n to Canada.
Written i n the mother's handwriting immediately af t e r t h e typed
b o d y o f t h e l e t t e r was a s e n t e n c e s t a t i n g t h a t t h e o t h e r t w o weeks
visitation i n J u l y were deemed optional, and depended on h e r
decision.
This agreed joint visitation fell through. There is
conflicting t e s t i m o n y as t o why. The m o t h e r claims that the
f a t h e r n o t i f i e d h e r of a change i n p l a n s , b u t l e f t on v a c a t i o n
e a r l y and f a i l e d t o l e a v e a n a d d r e s s w h e r e s h e c o u l d meet h e and
the children. The f a t h e r ' s s t o r y d i f f e r s . He claims t h e m o t h e r
was i n f o r m e d of t h e c h a n g e i n p l a n s and t h e new i t i n e r a r y s e v e r a l
months i n advance. He f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t s h e c a l l e d him o n e
week p r i o r t o t h e i r d e p a r t u r e s a y i n g t h a t t h e v a c a t i o n p l a n s were
unacceptable and wanting to change the vistation to August.
After this joint visitation fell through, the mother's
attorney, in a letter dated J u l y 2, 1 9 8 1 , indicated that she
w o u l d e x e r c i s e h e r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s from A u g u s t 3 t o S e p t e m b e r
3 , 1981. The f a t h e r ' s r e s p o n s e was t h a t t h i s w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e
a s it was n o t i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r f i x i n g h e r
summer rights of vistation from July 1 to July 31.
On A u g u s t 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y f i l e d two m o t i o n s .
The f i r s t was a m o t i o n t o compel v i s i t a t i o n and t h e o t h e r was a
motion to hold t h e f a t h e r i n contempt f o r n o t complying w i t h t h e
court order.
Thereafter, the father, through h i s attorney, filed several
motions. The f i r s t w a s a m o t i o n s e e k i n g m e n t a l e x a m i n a t i o n of
t h e mother. The n e x t was a m o t i o n s e e k i n g t o h a v e h e r v i s i t a t i o n
r i g h t s modified, t h e t h i r d s o u g h t a p p o i n t m e n t of a n a t t o r n e y f o r
the children, and f i n a l l y t h e l a s t r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o o r d e r
p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e m o t h e r ' s p s y c h i a t r i c r e c o r d s , The b a s i s f o r t h e
majority of these m o t i o n s was the mother's poor mental health
over the last few y e a r s w h i c h resulted i n her hospitalization
s e v e r a l times.
Hearing w a s held i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on A u g u s t 2 1 , 1981,
O c t o b e r 2 3 , 1 9 8 1 , and O c t o b e r 28, 1 9 8 1 . A t t h e s e times t h e c o u r t
heard t h e testimony of both p a r t i e s , interviewed the children i n
chambers, and heard the t e s t i m o n y of psychologist Dr. Kenneth
Welt. During t h e c o u r t ' s conversations with the c h i l d r e n they
a l l expressed t h e view t h a t v i s i t s w i t h t h e i r mother d i s r u p t e d
t h e i r l i v e s and t h e y would p r e f e r n o t t o see h e r . Dr. W e l t also
testified that the present visitation schedule caused the
c h i l d r e n a n x i e t y t h a t c o u l d r e s u l t i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e m o t i o n a l
harm. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d i t s o r d e r o n F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 8 2 .
In that order the District Court denied all of the father's
motions, found him in contempt of court, and based on that
f i n d i n g f i n e d him $ 5 0 0 and imposed a f i v e - d a y suspended s e n t e n c e
upon him. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o awarded t h e m o t h e r a t t o r n e y
f e e s and $736 i n c o s t s , f o r l o s t wages and t r a v e l i n g and accm-
modation expenses incurred during the course of this action.
S e v e r a l i s s u e s have been r a i s e d on a p p e a l t h a t r e q u i r e t h i s
Court's attention:
1. May t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w t h e l o w e r c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f con-
t e m p t on a p p e a l ?
2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r when d e a l i n g w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n
o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s by f a i l i n g to allow i n e v i d e n c e
p e r t a i n i n g to h e r p s y c h i a t r i c c o n d i t i o n ?
3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g to make f i n d i n g s as
t o the c h i l d r e n ' s wishes?
4. Did the District Court err in failing to appoint an
attorney for the children?
The first issue is t h e s i m p l e s t to d e a l w i t h and s h a l l be
disposed of first. Section 3-1-523, MCA, provides that the
judgment and o r d e r s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n c o n t e m p t cases a r e
" f i n a l and conclusive," and no a p p e a l may be t a k e n from them.
The p r o p e r a v e n u e t o u s e t o g a i n r e v i e w of a c o n t e m p t o r d e r , by
t h i s Court, is a w r i t o f certiorari. This Court, i n the past,
has refused to consider matters of contempt on d i r e c t appeal
based on section 3-1-523, MCA. O'Neill v. O'Neill (1979)f
Mont . , 6 0 3 P.2d 257, 3 6 S t . R e p . 2154; I n t h e Matter of
Gordons E s t a t e ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -
- Mon t . , 628 P.2d 1 1 1 7 , 38 S t . R e p .
8 8 7 and w i l l a g a i n do so i n t h i s case.
I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s of p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n
i t m u s t be remembered t h a t s u c h r i g h t s are m e r e l y i n c i d e n t s of
c u s t o d y o r d e r s , I n R e t h e M a r r i a g e of Adamson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -
- Colo.
, 626 P.2d 739, and t h e r e f o r e t h e same p r i n c i p l e s a p p l y to
v i s i t a t i o n as are a p p l i c a b l e t o c u s t o d y .
I n c o n s i d e r i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n of v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , t h e c o u r t
must c o n s i d e r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d a c c o r d i n g to s e c t i o n
40-4-217(3) MCA. T h i s Court i n F i r m a n v. ~ i r m a n ( 1 9 8 O ) r ----
Mont . ---- , 6 1 0 P.2d 1 7 8 , 37 S t . R e p . 888, held t h a t t h e best
i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d is p a r a m o u n t i n a n y proceeding concerning
the relationship of a parent with their child .
The c o n c e p t o f b e s t i n t e r e s t is d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-212,
MCA, which s t a t e s :
"The c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y i n a c c o r -
d a n c e w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d .
The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s
including:
" ( 1 ) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d ' s parent or
p a r e n t s as t o h i s c u s t o d i a n ;
" ( 2 ) the wishes of the child as to his
custodian;
" ( 3 ) 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 of
t h e c h i l d w i t h h i s p a r e n t or p a r e n t s , 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 s i g n i -
f icantly affect the child's best interest;
" ( 4 ) the c h i l d ' s adjustment to his home,
s c h o o l and community; a n d ,
"(5) the m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l health of all
i n d i v i d u a l s involved."
The District Court in making its decision in this case
appears to have ignored c e r t a i n of the factors. I t based its
d e c i s i o n on p r i o r a g r e e m e n t s and d e a l i n g s b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t s , as
is evidenced by its f i n d i n g s of fact and conclusions of law.
I n r e n d e r i n g i t s d e c i s i o n t h e c o u r t is o b l i g a t e d to c o n s i d e r
the mental health of all the parties involved under section
40-4-212(5), MCA, b u t i n t h e p r e s e n t case it d i d n o t d o so as it
refused to allow in psychiatric evidence pertaining to the
m o t h e r , i n t h e form of c e r t i f i e d h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s from L a s Vegas,
Nevada, and t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a p s y c h i a t r i s t who had e x a m i n e d t h e
mother i n 1979. A prior d e c i s i o n of t h i s Court r e f l e c t s t h i s
p o s i t i o n also. In Schiele v, S a g e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 4 Mont. 533, 571
P.2d 1 1 4 2 , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t e v i d e n c e which would be r e l e v a n t
i n a f f e c t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of a c h i l d w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a n is
admissible. The District Court also failed to consider the
wishes of t h e c h i l d r e n as is mandated u n d e r s e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 1 2 ( 2 ) ,
MCA. Despite the court's in-chambers interview with these
children, i n w h i c h e a c h c h i l d s t a t e s t h e y d i d n o t w i s h to v i s i t
w i t h t h e m o t h e r , no f i n d i n g s were made as to t h e i r w i s h e s or why
t h e y were n o t f o l l o w e d as is r e q u i r e d u n d e r o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n s .
Kaasa v . Kaasa ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 1 Mont. 1 8 , 5 9 1 P.2d 1110; Kramer v.
Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 6 1 , 580 P.2d 439.
The District Court also f a i l e d to consider the o n l y pro-
f e s s i o n a l t e s t i m o n y o f f e r e d by e i t h e r s i d e r e g a r d i n g w h a t was i n
the children's best interest. Dr. Kenneth W e l t , a clinical
psychologist in Butte, testified that the present visitation
s c h e d u l e c o u l d be h a r m f u l t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s m e n t a l h e a l t h d u e to
t h e higher-than-normal d e g r e e of anxiety the v i s i t s caused. He
recommended that visitation be m o d i f i e d so that it would take
p l a c e i n a s a f e e n v i r o n m e n t w h e r e t h e c h i l d r e n would f e e l c l o s e
t o t h e i r f a t h e r and w i t h which t h e y had some f a m i l i a r i t y . The
court made no reference to this t e s t i m o n y o r why it d i d not
accept it i n i t s judgment. I t merely proceeded to r e n d e r its
d e c i s i o n b a s e d o n t h e a g r e e m e n t s of t h e p a r e n t s , which is n o t t h e
p r o p e r s t a n d a r d w h e r e c h i l d r e n are c o n c e r n e d . The c h i l d ' s best
i n t e r e s t is p a r a m o u n t i n t h o s e t y p e of cases and s h o u l d be t h e
b a s i s f o r any d e c i s i o n , as p o i n t e d o u t i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n a b o v e .
The f o u r t h and f i n a l i s s u e to be a d d r e s s e d a t t h i s t i m e is
t h e District C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of a m o t i o n f o r a p p o i n t m e n t of any
attorney for the children, in this situation, despite specific
statutory authorization to do so u n d e r s e c t i o n 40-4-205, MCA.
The Court has s e t down t h e rule regarding court-appointed
attorneys for children in a prior case where we stated:
" [TI h e r u l e is t h a t a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l is
o n l y n e c e s s a r y when t h e c h i l d n e e d s a n advo-
cate to r e p r e s e n t h i s p o s i t i o n as to t h e
i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e or t o i n s u r e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t
of an a d e q u a t e l y complete record concerning
t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . " In the
Matter o f I n q u i r y i n t o JJS Youth I n Need o f
Care ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 2 0 2 , 5 7 7 P.2d 3 7 8 , 3 8 1 .
I n t h i s c a s e t h e c h i l d r e n d i d n o t need a n y o n e t o r e p r e s e n t
t h e i r p o s i t i o n as t o t h e i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e , because t h e D i s t r i c t
Court's in-chambers interview adequately developed their
position. B u t i n a d e q u a t e l y and c o m p l e t e l y d e v e l o p i n g a r e c o r d ,
i n r e g a r d s t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of the children, a n a t t o r n e y is
necessary in the present situation. The p a r t i e s t o t h i s pro-
c e e d i n g a r e e m b i t t e r e d a g a i n s t o n e a n o t h e r as t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
s o a c c u r a t e l y p o i n t s o u t i n its f i n d i n g s of f a c t no. 1 0 where it
s t a t e s , " [TI h i s is t h e most d i f f i c u l t c a s e o f d i v o r c e t h i s j u d g e
has experienced." T h i s t y p e o f s i t u a t i o n c a n c a u s e e a c h p a r t y to
present a self-serving v i e w of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . In
s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n s e l s h o u l d be a p p o i n t e d f o r t h e
c h i l d r e n t o e n s u r e a f u l l and f a i r d e v e l o p m e n t of w h a t would be
i n their best interest.
W h i l e t h i s a p p e a l was i n p r o g r e s s , Rosemary f i l e d t h r o u g h h e r
a t t o r n e y a motion i n t h i s C o u r t t o compel P h i l i p t o p e r f o r m a
v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r of t h e District Court d a t e d February 1 6 , 1982.
Rosemary w a s to have temporary c u s t o d y of the minor children
beginning July 1, 1982. Rosemary alleges the v i s i t a t i o n was
d e n i e d by P h i l i p .
E x a c t performance of t h e v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r c a n n o t now be com-
pelled because of the passage of time. However, t h e m o t h e r on
t h i s r e c o r d s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d f i t t o h a v e t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y of
h e r c h i l d r e n w i t h o u t i n t e r f e r e n c e from P h i l i p . W e t h e r e f o r e deny
t h e m o t i o n t o compel p e r f o r m a n c e by P h i l i p , b u t w e i n s t r u c t t h e
District Court, i f t h e p a r t i e s d o n o t a g r e e on i m m e d i a t e v i s i t a -
tioc for the mother upoc remittitur from this Court to so
provide. W f u r t h e r d i r e c t the D i s t r i c t Court to f i x acd allow
e
a t t o r c e y f e e s acd c o s t s t o be paid by P h i l i p to Rosemary i ~ c u r r e d
ic coccectior! with her motior!, ic additioc t o whatever other
r e l i e f o r o r d e r the ~ i s t r i c tCourt may make i e t h i s f a c e t of the
case.
Based or? our h o l d i ~ g s or? the above i s s u e s , PO other issues
r a i s e d by coucsel f o r the r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s peed be c o ~ s i d e r e d
at this time. The judgmert of the District Court, with the
e x c e p t i o c of i t s coctempt holdicg is reversed acd remacded f o r a
Pew h e a r i ~ g , t o be cocducted ic accorda~cew i t h this opi~ior!.
/ Justice
,
'
/
,
'
We concur: