No. 12617
I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A
H OR F H F OTN
1974
I N T E M T E O THE ADOPTION
H ATR F
O DWAYNE BIERY, A MINOR CHILD
F
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable A l f r e d B. Coate, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
K e l l y and C a r r , Miles C i t y , Montana
P a t r i c k J. Kelly argued, Miles C i t y , Montana
For Respondent :
William F. Meisburger, County A t t o r n e y , argued,
Forsyth, Montana
Submitted: A p r i l 23, 1974
Decided :
Filed: Jna 8 ,974
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an appeal by t h e n a t u r a l mother of a minor c h i l d
from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Rosebud county d e c l a r i n g
t h a t h e r minor c h i l d remain i n t h e custody of and be adopted
by t h e p e t i t i o n e r s .
The mother, Mayleen (Biery) Anderson, and Criss Harold
Biery were married on December 4, 1966. Todd Dwayne Biery was
born as lawful i s s u e of s a i d marriage. The f a t h e r and mother
were divorced bn September 4, 1968. Under t h e terms of t h e
divorce decree, t h e f a t h e r was awarded custody of t h e minor
c h i l d with reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i n t h e mother. On
February 25, 1969, t h e mother sought t o have t h e decree of
divorce modified t o enable h e r t o have t h e custody of s a i d
child. That p e t i t i o n w a s denied and custody remained with
the father.
The f a t h e r maintained custody of t h e c h i l d i n t h e home
of h i s s i s t e r and brother-in-law, Katherine Berdahl and Benny
0. Berdahl, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s and respondents h e r e i n , u n t i l t h e
a c c i d e n t a l death of t h e f a t h e r , Criss Harold Biery, on February
20, 1973.
A week l a t e r t h e respondents p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t of Rosebud County f o r temporary custody of t h e minor
c h i l d and f u r t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r adoption. A order
n
t o show cause why custody should n o t be granted t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s
was i s s u e d t o t h e mother, Mayleen (Biery) Anderson. Subsequently
a hearing thereon was h e l d on March 5, 1973, and on A p r i l 23,
1973, a t r i a l w a s had on t h e respondent's p e t i t i o n t o adopt.
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ordered both p e t i t i o n e r s ' and t h e
n a t u r a l mother's homes t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e welfare depart-
ment. Both homes were found s u i t a b l e by t h e welfare department
and n o t i c e of t h i s was made i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and
conclusions of l a w . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o made f i n d i n g s of
fact:
"VI. That Respondent, although denied custody o f
t h i s c h i l d on two occasions by t h i s Court, has
t l y married; l i v e s i n Grand Forks, North
subsequT
Dakota; d e s i r e s t o o b t a i n custody of s a i d c h i l d ;
has a s u i t a b l e home f o r t h e r a i s i n g of t h e c h i l d ;
and i s joined i n h e r r e q u e s t by h e r p r e s e n t husband.
"VIII. That Respondent has t e s t i f i e d t h a t her l i f e
s t y l e has changed; t h a t she now i s mature enough t o
r a i s e t h e c h i l d ; t h a t such testimony i s supported
by an e x p e r t witness and i s i n no way c o n t r a d i c t e d
by evidence produced by P e t i t i o n e r s .
s a i d c h i l d has b e n e f i t e d from t h e s t a b l e
which h e has been l i v i n g i n
one-half years. I'
and conclusions of law:
"VII. That i t would be f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f
t h e c h i l d , Todd Dwayne Biery, t o remain i n t h e
custody o f , and be adopted by t h e p e t i t i o n e r s . I 1
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h a t a f i n a l decree of adoption be
entered which w a s done on September 4, 1973.
The mottper now appeals from t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t
I
c o u r t g r a n t i n g ipermanent custody and adoption t o p e t i t i o n e r s .
Two i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review:
(1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n
awarding permanent custody t o respondents?
(2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n g r a n t i n g respondents'
p e t i t i o n t o adopt?
Directing our a t t e n t i o n t o the f i r s t i s s u e , we note t h a t
t h i s Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y looked t o the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of
the c h i l d i n determining custody . McCullough v. McCullough,
159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 1189; Simon v. Simon, 154 Mont. 193,
461 P.2d 851; Haynes v. F i l l n e r , 106 Mont. 59, 75 P.2d 802.
In awarding the custody of a minor, section 91-4515(1) speci-
f i c a l l y provides t h a t t h e court i s t o be guided:
"By what appears t o be f o r the b e s t i n t e r e s t s
of the c h i l d i n respect t o i t s temporal and
i t s mental and moral welfare * * *."
The p a r e n t ' s r i g h t t o the custody of h e r minor c h i l d i s
not an absolute one, even though i t be conceded t h a t she i s a
f i t and proper person. I n a l l such cases t h e c r u c i a l f a c t o r
i s the c h i l d ' s welfare, both material and psychological, con-
sidering i n p a r t i c u l a r the t i e s of a f f e c t i o n the c h i l d has
formed and t h e consequences of breaking those t i e s . It i s
apparent t h a t the d i s t r i c t court took i n t o consideration the
f a c t t h a t t h e c h i l d had l i v e d with the p e t i t i o n e r s the p a s t
four and one-half years, and t h a t he had adapted to those sur-
roundings. To remove the c h i l d from f a m i l i a r surroundings
might cause emotional d i s o r i e n t a t i o n i n addition to t h a t
already caused by t h e death of h i s f a t h e r . It i s c l e a r from
the record t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e t i t i o n e r s and the
c h i l d i s extremely close. For these reasons the d i s t r i c t court
concluded t h a t i t would be i n t h e c h i l d t s b e s t i n t e r e s t s t o
remain with p e t i t i o n e r s .
What i s , o r what i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the
c h i l d depends upon the f a c t s and circumstances of each case.
The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of deciding custody i s a d e l i c a t e one which i s
lodged with t h e d i s t r i c t court. The judge hearing o r a l testimony
i n such a controversy has a superior advantage i n determining
the same, and h i s decision ought n o t t o be disturbed except upon
a c l e a r showing of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . McCullough v. McCullough,
: - t
159 Mont. -bq 498 P. 2d 1189 ; Anderson v. Anderson, 145 Mont. 244,
400 P.2d 632.
W f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence supporting t h e
e
decision here and accordingly no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding
custody t o p e t i t i o n e r s . Thus we affirm t h a t p a r t of the d i s t r i c t
c o u r t ' s order.
The second i s s u e presented f o r review presents a more
d i f f i c u l t problem. The laws of Montana r e l a t i n g to t h e adoption
of a minor c h i l d a r e found i n section 61-201, e t seq., R.C.M.
1947. O p a r t i c u l a r importance t o t h i s i s s u e i s section 61-205,
f
R.C.M. 1947, requiring consent of a n a t u r a l parent of a c h i l d
sought t o be adopted unless one of t h e exceptions s e t f o r t h i n
t h i s s t a t u t e i s met. The exceptions excusing consent a r e s e t
out with p a r t i c u l a r i t y :
"An adoption of a c h i l d may be decreed when
t h e r e have been f i l e d w r i t t e n consents t o
adoption executed by :
"(1) Both parents, i f l i v i n g , o r the surviving
parent, of a l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d ; provided, t h a t
consent s h a l l n o t be required from a f a t h e r o r
mother ,
If
(a) adjudged g u i l t y by a court of competent
j u r i s d i c t i o n of physical c r u e l t y toward s a i d
child; o r ,
"(b) adjudged t o be a h a b i t u a l drunkard; o r ,
"(c) who has been j u d i c i a l l y deprived of the
custody of the c h i l d on account of c r u e l t y o r
neglect toward the c h i l d ; o r ,
"(d) who has, i n the s t a t e of Montana, o r i n
any o t h e r s t a t e of the United S t a t e s , w i l l f u l l y
abandoned such c h i l d ; o r
"(e) who has caused t h e c h i l d t o be maintained
by any public o r p r i v a t e c h i l d r e n ' s i n s t i t u t i o n ,
c h a r i t a b l e agency, o r any licensed adoption agency,
o r the s t a t e department of public welfare of t h e
s t a t e of Montana f o r a period of one (1) year
without contributing t o t h e support of s a i d c h i l d
during s a i d period, i f able; o r ,
" ( f ) i f i t i s proven t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the
court t h a t s a i d f a t h e r o r mother, i f able, has
n o t contributed t o t h e support of s a i d c h i l d
during a period of one (1) year before t h e f i l i n g
- - - -
of a p e t i t i o n f o r adoption; o r (an adoption of a
c h i l d may be decreed when there have been f i l e d
w r i t t e n consents t o adoption executed by).
"(2) The mother, alone, i f the c h i l d i s i l l e g i t i m a t e ;
or
"(3) The l e g a l guardian of t h e person of the c h i l d
i f both parents a r e dead o r i f t h e r i g h t s of t h e
parents have been terminated by j u d i c i a l proceedings
and such guardian has a u t h o r i t y by order of t h e court
appointing him t o consent t o the adoption; o r
" ( 4 ) The executive head of an agency i f the c h i l d
has been relinquished f o r adoption t o such agency
o r i f t h e r i g h t s of the parents have been j u d i c i a l l y
terminated, o r i f both parents a r e dead, and custody
of the c h i l d has been l e g a l l y vested i n such agency
with authority t o consent t o adoption of the c h i l d ;
or,
"(5) Any person having l e g a l custody of a c h i l d by
court order i f the parental r i g h t s of the parents
have been j u d i c i a l l y terminated, but i n such case
the court having j u r i s d i c t i o n of the custody of t h e
c h i l d must consent t o adoption, and a c e r t i f i e d copy
of i t s order s h a l l be attached t o the p e t i t i o n .
"The consents required by paragraphs (1) and (2) s h a l l
be acknowledged before an o f f i c e r authorized to take
acknowledgments, o r witnessed by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of
the s t a t e department of public welfare o r of an agency
o r witnessed by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e court." (Emphasis
added. )
P e t i t i o n e r s concede t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t made no
f i n d i n g t h a t Mayleen Anderson, t h e surviving parent came w i t h i n
any o f t h e exceptions c i t e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . Nor d i d she consent
t o t h e adoption. They contend, however, t h a t t h e r e i s testimony
t h a t t h e only support received f o r t h e c h i l d came from h i s
f a t h e r and from t h e respondents, thus coming under t h e exception
of subsection ( l ) ( f ) of s e c t i o n 61-205, R.C.M. 1947. They
argue t h a t s e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s have decided cases which
i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p a r e n t s ' consent t o adoption i s n o t r e q u i r e d
where they have f a i l e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e support of t h e
c h i l d , during a period of one year before t h e f i l i n g of a
p e t i t i o n f o r adoption, r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e r e was a c o u r t
o r d e r compelling them t o do so. Adoption of a Minor, 357 Mass.
490, 258 N.E.2d 567; I n r e Adoption of Sargent, 57 Ohio Op.2d
135, 272 N.E.2d 206.
While t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d a r e of utmost
concern i n both custody and adoption c a s e s we have r e q u i r e d
s t r i c t compliance with s e c t i o n 61-205, R O C.M. 1947, because
of t h e harshness o f permanently terminating p a r e n t a l r i g h t s .
Although t h e r e i s testimony i n t h e record t h a t t h e
c h i l d w a s supported during t h e preceeding four year period by
t h e f a t h e r and p e t i t i o n e r s , t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e mother
-
was a b l e and f a i l e d t o give support during t h i s same period.
Subsection (1) (f) of s e c t i o n 61-205, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s
t h a t i t be proven:
"* * * t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t t h a t s a i d
f a t h e r o r mother, i f a b l e , has n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o
t h e support of s a i d c h i l d during a period of one (1)
year before t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n f o r adoption ** *.I1
(Emphasis added.)
This the p e t i t i o n e r s f a i l e d t o do. Nor did the d i s t r i c t c o u r t
make any findings t o support p e t i t i o n e r s argument. Absent a
finding bringing the mother within one of the exceptions,
consent i s required.
For these reasons we affirm the custody award, but
vacate t h e adoption order without prejudice.
T
Justice