No. 13366
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
OR F F
1976
JUDY BROOKS,
P l a i n t i f f and Appellant,
-VS -
C. ROBIN BROOKS,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Edward Yelsa argued, Anaconda, Montana
For Respondent:
Radanich, B r o l i n and Reardon, Anaconda, Montana
William B r o l i n argued, Anaconda, Montana
Submitted: October 26, 1976
Decided : idoV 2 .: 1976
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court.
. /
L
This appeal i s from an order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
County, modifying t h e o r i g i n a l decree of divorce by t r a n s f e r r i n g
t h e c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l of two minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r
C. Robin Brooks, s u b j e c t t o reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s on the.
p a r t of t h e mother, Judy Brooks.
Judy Brooks and C. Robin Brooks were divorced i n September
1973. That decree awarded Judy t h e custody of t h e two minor
c h i l d r e n and support f o r those c h i l d r e n . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e divorce
Judy l e f t t h e s t a t e with h e r c h i l d r e n accompanied by a married
man who had l e f t h i s wife. They went t o C a l i f o r n i a where they
shared an apartment. A f t e r some n i n e months i n C a l i f o r n i a , they
returned t o Montana and Judy moved i n with h e r p a r e n t s .
A t t h e time she returned t o Montana, Judy was pregnant
with a c h i l d of h e r companion and gave b i r t h t o t h i s c h i l d i n
October 1974. The v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s provided f o r by t h e decree
t o t h e f a t h e r i n t h e o r i g i n a l decree of divorce ceased during t h e
C a l i f o r n i a s t a y , b u t t h e f a t h e r continued t o provide support
f o r t h e c h i l d r e n while they were i n C a l i f o r n i a and f o r a period
a f t e r they returned t o Montana.
By c o u r t s t i p u l a t i o n t h e f a t h e r took t h e c h i l d r e n i n t o h i s
home u n t i l a f t e r J u l y ' s c h i l d was born i n October. After returning
t h e c h i l d r e n t o Judy he had v i s i t a t i o n troubles,though he made
e f f o r t s t o have h i s c h i l d r e n .
J u l y moved from h e r parents home i n February 1975 t o a
small home with a s i s t e r of t h e man she had been l i v i n g with and
t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p continued though t h e man was s t i l l married t o
someone e l s e .
Some months l a t e r they moved from Anaconda and set up
housekeeping i n an apartment i n Garrison, Montana. Although
Robin Brooks t r i e d t o see and have h i s c h i l d r e n on r e g u l a r v i s i t a -
t i o n p r i v i l e g e s t h e r e a f t e r , he was unable t o do so and he c u t
o f f support payments a l l e g i n g t h a t i t was n o t being used f o r h i s
minor c h i l d r e n . He p e t i t i o n e d f o r modification of t h e decree and
a change of custody and on t h e day i t was heard paid a l l delinquent
payments. Following a f u l l hearing of t h e cause t h e p r e s i d i n g
judge ordered a change of custody. The mother appeals.
Two i s s u e s a r e before t h i s Court on appeal:
1) Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t evidence before t h e t r i a l c o u r t
t o support i t s conclusions t h a t i t would be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s
of t h e minor c h i l d r e n t o t r a n s f e r custody t o t h e f a t h e r ?
2) Did t h e c o u r t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n t r a n s f e r r i n g
custody?
W w i l l d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e s a s one. W f i n d t h e r e was
e e
s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o t r a n s f e r custody t o t h e f a t h e r and i n
doing so t h e r e was no abuse of j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n .
This Court has long followed t h e r u l e t h a t u n l e s s t h e r e i s
a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a d e c i s i o n on
custody w i l l not be overruled on appeal. Love v . Love, 166 Mont.
303, 533 P.2d 280; Gilmore v. Gilmore, 166 Mont. 47, 530 P.2d 480;
Anderson v. Anderson, 145 Mont. 244, 400 P.2d 632. I n these
c i t e d cases t h i s Court has committed i t s e l f t o t h e view t h a t t h e
welfare of t h e c h i l d i s t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n awarding
custody and t h a t i t must of n e c e s s i t y , be l e f t l a r g e l y t o t h e d i s -
c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge. H e hears t h e testimony, s e e s t h e
witnesses' demeanor and has a s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining those
d i f f i c u l t problems.
Here, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g f o r t h e f a t h e r , t h e
behavior of t h e n a t u r a l mother and i t s u l t i m a t e e f f e c t on t h e
c h i l d r e n a s they grow, warrant t h e d e c i s i o n . The f a t h e r can
provide a home and t h e s t a b i l i t y needed f o r t h e necessary h e a l t h y
emotional growth of t h e c h i l d r e n , plus t h e i n s t a b i l i t y of t h e
mother i n h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with o t h e r men a r e s u f f i c i e n t f a c t o r s
t o support t h e t r i a l judge's decision.
The judgment i s affirmed.
W
-e Concur:
/ /'- Chief J u s t i c e .
,
/ ,n. Jack Shanstrom, D i s t r i c t
sitting for Justice
Wesley C a s t l e s .