No. 13466
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
1977
I N THE MATTER O THE ADOPTION
F
O J A M I E L N SMIGAJ, a minor.
F YN
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Gordon B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
L e a p h a r t Law Firm, Helena, Montana
W. W i l l i a m L e a p h a r t a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
V i c t o r H. F a l l , Helena, Montana
James M. D r i s c o l l a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana
For Respondent :
R u s s e l l LaVigne a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
Submitted: January 2 0 , 1977
DecidedEB 7 1977
Filed: FEB 7 WQ A
Mr. J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
A s t e p f a t h e r of a seven year o l d female c h i l d a p p e a l s
from a n o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n e n t e r e d by
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Lewis and C l a r k County, Honorable Gordon
R. Bennett, d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g without a jury.
The c a s e comes t o u s on t h e b a s i s o f a n a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t
o f f a c t i n l i e u of a r e c o r d on appeal p u r s u a n t t o Rule 9 ( d ) ,
M.R.App.Civ.P. The a g r e e d f a c t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d , J a m i e
Lynn S m i g a j , was a d o p t e d when s h e was o n e y e a r o l d by James E .
Smigaj and A l b e r t a S m i g a j , husband and w i f e . S u b s e q u e n t l y James
Smigaj became t o t a l l y d i s a b l e d and a s a c o n s e q u e n c e t h e r e o f ,
Jamie Lynn r e c e i v e s monthly S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s o f $154.
On F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 1 9 7 3 , James E . Smigaj and A l b e r t a Smigaj w e r e
divorced. Custody o f J a m i e Lynn was awarded t o A l b e r t a w i t h
r e a s o n a b l e r i g h t s o f v i s i t a t i o n g r a n t e d t o James S m i g a j . The
j u d g e , upon c o n s i d e r i n g J a m e s 1 d i s a b i l i t y , d i d n o t o r d e r him t o
pay c h i l d s u p p o r t .
On September 3 , 1974, A l b e r t a m a r r i e d Douglas J . Rushford
and e v e r s i n c e t h e y have been husband and w i f e , r e s i d i n g t o g e t h e r
w i t h J a m i e Lynn.
On A p r i l 2 0 , 1 9 7 6 , Rushford 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
f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o a d o p t J a m i e Lynn w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e
c h i l d ' s p r i o r a d o p t i v e f a t h e r , James S m i g a j .
On J u n e 24, 1976, a h e a r i n g was h e l d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
a t which t i m e James Smigaj a p p e a r e d w i t h c o u n s e l b u t d i d n o t
testify. A l b e r t a t e s t i f i e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t f o r more
t h a n o n e y e a r p r i o r t o t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n by R u s h f o r d ,
James Smigaj had n o t v i s i t e d w i t h o r s e e n J a m i e Lynn n o r had J a m i e
Lynn r e c e i v e d any l e t t e r s , p o s t c a r d s , p r e s e n t s , c l o t h i n g o r money
from James Smigaj.
A t t h e conclusion of t h e testimony i n support of t h e
p e t i t i o n f o r adoption, Judge Bennett dismissed t h e c a s e f o r
t h e r e a s o n t h a t Rushford had f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t James Smigaj
was a b l e t o f i n a n c i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s u p p o r t o f J a m i e Lynn
a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 61-205, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , and t h u s t h e a d o p t i o n
c o u l d n o t p r o c e e d w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f James Smigaj.
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w :
(1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n n o t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n ?
( 2 ) Is s e c t i o n 61-205(1) ( f ) l i m i t e d t o " f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t " ?
The f i r s t i s s u e h a s p r e v i o u s l y been d e c i d e d by t h i s
Court adversely t o a p p e l l a n t ' s p o s i t i o n . I n re Adoption of Biery
( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 353, 359, 522 P.2d 1377. S t a t u t o r y consent
r e q u i r e m e n t s i n a d o p t i o n c a s e s must f i r s t b e m e t a f t e r which t h e
w e l f a r e o f t h e c h i l d becomes paramount. A s s t a t e d i n Biery:
"While 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 a r e o f
u t m o s t c o n c e r n i n b o t h c u s t o d y and a d o p t i o n cases
w e have r e q u i r e d s t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n
61-205, R.C.M. 1947, because o f t h e harshness of
permanently terminating p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . "
Thus i n a d o p t i o n c a s e s t h e i n i t i a l t h r e s h h o l d r e q u i r e m e n t i s
s t a t u t o r y compliance. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t w a s c o r r e c t i n d i s m i s s -
i n g t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n on f i n d i n g t h a t s t a t u t o r y c o n s e n t
r e q u i r e m e n t s had n o t been m e t .
D i r e c t i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e second i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t
a r g u e s t h a t t h e t e r m " s u p p o r t " c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 61-205(1) ( f ) ,
R.C.M. 1947, d o e s n o t r e f e r e x c l u s i v e l y t o f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t b u t
i n c l u d e s moral support, psychological support, s p i r i t u a l support
and s o f o r t h . Rushford u r g e s t h a t " s u p p o r t " i n c l u d e s t h e p a r e n t a l
o b l i g a t i o n s t o e x p r e s s l o v e and c o n c e r n f o r t h e c h i l d and t o g i v e
t h e c h i l d s o c i a l and r e l i g i o u s g u i d a n c e a s s e t f o r t h i n A p p l i -
c a t i o n o f Conley v . Walden ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 369, 533 P.2d 955.
I n t h i s r e g a r d Rushford r e l i e s on A l b e r t a ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t James
Smigaj d i d n o t v i s i t J a m i e and d i d n o t s e n d h e r any l e t t e r s ,
p o s t c a r d s , p r e s e n t s , c l o t h i n g o r money.
Section 61-205(1)(f) s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t t h e
f a t h e r ' s consent t o t h e adoption i s not required:
" i f it i s 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 ,
h a s n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s u p p o r t of s a i d c h i l d
d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f one (1) y e a r b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g
of a p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n * * *." (Emphasis a d d e d . )
Although w e have n o t been r e f e r r e d t o any c a s e s p e c i f i c -
a l l y c o n s t r u i n g t h e meaning of t h e t e r m " s u p p o r t " i n s e c t i o n
6 1 - 2 0 5 ( 1 ) ( f ) , we have no d i f f i c u l t y i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e p l a i n
meaning of t h e words i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e c o n s e n t s t a t u t e a s
r e f e r r i n g t o t h e " f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t " t h a t a p a r e n t owes a c h i l d .
R u s h f o r d ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t James S m i g a j , " * * *
although f i n a n c i a l l y capable, has not contributed t o t h e support
of s a i d c h i l d * * *". The p a r t i e s b r i e f e d t h e q u e s t i o n of f i n -
a n c i a l support. The p a r t i e s t h e m s e l v e s i n t e r p r e t e d t h e s t a t u t e
t o mean " f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t " . The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i s c l e a r
from t h e language used i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e s t a t u t e and w e a r e
n o t p e r m i t t e d t o a p p l y e x t r i n s i c r u l e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n t o expand
the definition. K e l l e r v . Smith, (1976), Mont . , 553
P.2d 1002, 33 S t - R e p . 828; Dunphy v . Anaconda Co. (1968), 151
Mont. 76, 438 P.2d 660, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n .
I t a p p e a r s t h a t Rushford i s a c t u a l l y a t t e m p t i n g t o a r g u e
t h a t James Smigaj h a s abandoned Jamie Lynn and t h e r e f o r e h i s
c o n s e n t i s n o t r e q u i r e d under s e c t i o n 6 1 - 2 0 5 ( 1 ) ( d ) , R.C.M. 1947.
I f such i s t h e c a s e , t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n s h o u l d be d r a f t e d
on t h i s b a s i s and a h e a r i n g h e l d t h e r e o n t o d e t e r m i n e whether
t h e f a c t s bring the p e t i t i o n within t h i s s t a t u t e . The d e c i s i o n
h e r e i n i s w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o r e f i l i n g t h e p e t i t i o n on t h i s b a s i s .
The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e t i t i o n
is affirmed.
Justice
We concur:
~,- -.
Justices
'
6