No. 13318
I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA
OR F H F
1976
MUZZETTE STUBBEN, formerly
MUZZETTE AZURE on behalf of
RAMONA AZURE and PEPITA AZURE,
P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t ,
FLATHEAD C U T DEPARTMENT O
O NY F
PUBLIC WELFARE,
Defendant and Respondent,
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
McGarvey, Lence & Heberling, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
J o n L. Heberling argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
For Respondent:
P a t r i c k M e S p r i n g e r , County Attorney, K a l i s p e l l ,
Montana
Randy K. Schwickert argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
Thomas Mahan, Helena, Montana
Submitted: October 21, 1976
Decided : iVOv 1 1976
6
Filed: !YO\/~$I~TC
Mr.J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a d e n i a l o f h a b e a s c o r p u s pe-
t i t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f F l a t h e a d County i n v o l v i n g two
minor c h i l d r e n .
On November 4 , 1974, J u d g e Sykes d e c l a r e d two minor
c h i l d r e n o f p e t i t i o n e r Muzzette Stubben (formerly Muzzette
Azure) and P e t e r Azure t o b e d e p e n d e n t n e g l e c t e d c h i l d r e n . At
t h a t t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e two y e a r s o l d and e i g h t months o l d .
The p a r e n t s and b o t h s e t s o f g r a n d p a r e n t s w e r e p r e s e n t a t t h e
hearing. N o t i c e o f e n t r y o f judgment w a s s e r v e d o n M u z z e t t e
on December 20, 1974. The c h i l d r e n w e r e p l a c e d i n a f o s t e r home
and have been l i v i n g t h e r e s i n c e . On J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 7 5 , a n o t i c e
o f a p p e a l was f i l e d . On O c t o b e r 1 0 , 1 9 7 5 , p e t i t i o n e r M u z z e t t e
f i l e d t h i s habeas corpus p e t i t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o l l a t -
e r a l l y a t t a c k i n g t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n 1974. The g r a n d p a r e n t s
t h e n w i t h d r e w t h e i r a p p e a l and t h e p e t i t i o n w a s h e a r d and d e n i e d
by J u d g e Sykes on December 3 0 , 1975.
T h r e e i s s u e s w e r e p r e s e n t e d and a r g u e d b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t .
1. Was t h e h a b e a s c o r p u s p e t i t i o n a p r o p e r remedy i n
the case?
2. Did t h e p e t i t i o n e r have s t a n d i n g ?
3. Does d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l
f o r c h i l d r e n i n a d e p e n d e n t n e g l e c t p r o c e e d i n g o r a t a minimum
d o e s t h e r e c o r d a f f i r m a t i v e l y show t h a t t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r
exercising i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o appoint counsel?
W e answer a l l t h r e e i s s u e s i n t h e n e g a t i v e .
H e r e t h e p e t i t i o n e r M u z z e t t e had a n a d e q u a t e remedy o f
a p p e a l which w a s n o t e x e r c i s e d and t h e l a w h a s l o n g been s e t t l e d
t h a t g e n e r a l l y h a b e a s c o r p u s w i l l n o t b e g r a n t e d where t h e a d e -
q u a t e remedy h a s n o t been t a k e n a d v a n t a g e o f . Ex p a r t e Solway,
82 Mont. 8 9 , 265 P . 21; P e t i t i o n o f Grady, 1 6 5 Mont. 531, 530
P.2d 4 6 1 ; 39 Am J u r 2d, Habeas Corpus, 5 2 1 ; 3 9 C.J.S. Habeas
Corpus 5 5 3 & 4. Nor c a n t h e f a c t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r h a s a l l o w e d
t i m e t o e l a p s e w i t h i n which h e r a p p e a l c o u l d have been t a k e n
g i v e h e r any r i g h t t o r e s o r t t o h a b e a s c o r p u s . 39 C.J.S. Habeas
Corpus S 8 .
P e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o appoint counsel
f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e dependent n e g l e c t h e a r i n g i s grounds
for issuing the w r i t . Not so! The f a c t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t ap-
p o i n t c o u n s e l h e r e was d u e t o t h e f a c t t h a t u n d e r o u r s t a t u t e s
a p p o i n t m e n t o f c o u n s e l i s n o t mandatory. J u d g e Sykes c o n s i d e r e d
t h e q u e s t i o n and found t h a t t h e F l a t h e a d County Department o f
Welfare, through i t s counsel, properly represented t h e c h i l d r e n .
Counsel a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i s a p e r s u a s i v e d e v e l o p i n g
t r e n d t h a t c a l l s f o r t h e appointment of c o u n s e l f o r c h i l d r e n
i n neglect cases. However, o n l y o n e s t a t e , N e w York, h a s o r d e r -
ed c o u n s e l i n a l l c a s e s and two j u r i s d i c t i o n s (Oregon and Pennsyl-
v a n i a ) i n c a s e s , d e p e n d i n g upon t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . No r e f e r e n c e
i s made t o whether t h e s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s made t h e c h a n g e t h r o u g h
j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n o r through t h e l e g i s l a t i v e process.
W e next consider p e t i t i o n e r ' s standing a s t h e n a t u r a l
mother t o p e t i t i o n on b e h a l f of h e r c h i l d r e n .
The voluminous f i l e s o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t show t h a t
t h e r i g h t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n have been f u l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t h e p r o -
longed l e g a l proceedings i n v o l v i n g n o t o n l y t h e c h i l d r e n b u t t h e
petitioner. Here, t h e W e l f a r e Department h a s made m u l t i p l e i n -
v e s t i g a t i o n s and g i v e n e v e r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o p r o t e c t i n g t h e s e
children. P e t i t i o n e r h a s a l w a y s been a d e q u a t e l y a d v i s e d by coun-
sel. The m a t e r n a l and p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s have been b e f o r e
t h e c o u r t w i t h c o u n s e l i n e f f o r t s t o n o t o n l y s a l v a g e t h e pe-
t i t i o n e r ' s f i r s t marriage, but t o help these children with t h e
parents. Judge S y k e s ' memorandums show t h o u g h t f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n
i n t r y i n g t o s o l v e t h e problems p r e s e n t e d t o him which u l t i m a t e l y
n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e placement of t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e c o n t r o l of
t h e W e l f a r e Department. The c a s e s r e l i e d on by p e t i t i o n e r w e r e
n o t f a c t u a l l y i n p o i n t f o r i n e a c h of them t h e p a r e n t s d i d n o t
have p r o p e r n o t i c e . A f t e r a l l t h e h e a r i n g s , t h e c o u r t found
p r o p e r l y t h a t it was i n t h e c h i l d r e n s ' b e s t i n t e r e s t s t h a t t h e
v a r i o u s r i g h t s a r g u e d f o r be t e r m i n a t e d . These f i n d i n g s and
c o n c l u s i o n s were n o t c h a l l e n g e d and w e f i n d p e t i t i o n e r d o e s n o t
have s t a n d i n g t o now p e t i t i o n f o r h e r c h i l d r e n .
The l a s t i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y re-
q u i r e d i n p r o t e c t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n s ' i n t e r e s t s i n a d e p e n d e n t
neglected c h i l d r e n proceeding.
P e t i t i o n e r r e l i e s upon a r e c e n t (1974) c a s e from Oregon,
S t a t e ex r e l . Juv. Dept. of Multnomah Cty. v . Wade, Or.App, 527
P.2d 753. T h i s i s t h e o n l y c a s e found t h a t c o u n s e l must be
p r o v i d e d a s a matter o f d u e p r o c e s s of law. None of t h e o t h e r
c a s e s c i t e d d i r e c t l y s u p p o r t p e t i t i o n e r ' s argument.
Our s t a t u t e , a p a r t o f o u r r e c e n t l y adopted Youth Court
Act, S e c t i o n 1 0 - 1 3 1 0 ( 1 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s :
-
" ( 1 2 ) The c o u r t may a t any t i m e on i t s own
motion, o r t h e motion o f any p a r t y , a p p o i n t a
guardian ad l i t e m f o r t h e youth, o r counsel f o r
any i n d i g e n t p a r t y . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The s t a t u t e c l e a r l y v e s t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers i n t h e
c o u r t and h e r e t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n
w e r e adequately protected without appointing a d d i t i o n a l counsel.
While p e t i t i o n e r a r g u e s t h a t under t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e o f b o t h
the
our s t a t e and/federal c o n s t i t u t i o n t h e appointment of counsel i s
mandatory, s h e weakens h e r argument by s a y i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t
e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l and t h a t
a showing i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d e x e r c i s e t h i s
measure o f d i s c r e t i o n i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y r e q u i r e d i n a p r o p e r
dependent n e g l e c t e d c h i l d r e n h e a r i n g . Not so! The r e c o r d s o f
t h e c a s e c l e a r l y show t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d show t h a t it
was aware of t h e argument and p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d i t s d i s c r e -
tion.
A s n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y t h e s e c h i l d r e n have been i n a f o s t e r
home f o r o v e r two y e a r s . The problems of t h e p a r e n t s have been
before t h e c o u r t s f o r a long period.
A t t h e t i m e of o r a l argument c e r t a i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s
were d i s c u s s e d by c o u n s e l which w e r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d by t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r t h e W e l f a r e Department and we s u g g e s t t h a t a
f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n m i g h t be made, a d e c i s i o n which we l e a v e
t o the d i s t r i c t court.
With t h i s comment w e a f f i r m t h e judgment.
<
. C. Gulbrandson, D i s t r i c t