No. 81-478
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982
IN THE MATTER OF M.F., J.F.,
and R.W., YOUTH IN NEED OF CARE.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone
Honorable Diane Barz, Judge presidinq.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Gary E. Wilcox, Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Ilarold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana
Olsen, Christensen & Gannett, Billings, Montana
Damon Gannett, Billings, Montana
Submitted on briefs: September 30, 1982
Decided: November 24, 1982
Filed: wok & 4 1982
Mr. Justice John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered t h e Opinion of the
Court.
On December 4, 1980, the Department of Social and
Rehabilitation Services petitioned the District Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial District, in and for the County of
Yellowstone, f o r permanent c u s t o d y of J.F., M.F., and R.W. and
for termination of all parental rights. After hearings on
December 29, 1980, April LO, 1981, and April 15, 1981, the
D i s t r i c t Court granted the p e t i t i o n . F i n a l j u d g m e n t was e n t e r e d
A u g u s t 4 , 1 9 8 1 , and t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r a p p e a l s .
Petitioner is the natural mother of J.F., M.F., and R.W.
Each o f t h e c h i l d r e n have a d i f f e r e n t n a t u r a l father. J.F. was
b o r n A p r i l 11, 1 9 6 7 , i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. M.F. was b o r n May 11,
1970, in Billings, Montana. R.W. w a s b o r n December 9 , 1 9 7 4 , in
Farmington , N e w Mexico.
The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS)
f i r s t had contact with the n a t u r a l mother i n 1967. Especially
during the time period from 1976 through 1981, SRS received
numerous complaints alleging abuse and neglect of the three
children. Incidents of physical abuse were sporadic and
generally involved one of the mother's four husbands, o r many
boyfriends. I n O c t o b e r , 1 9 7 6 , Ron C o o p e r , t h e m o t h e r ' s t h e n hus-
b a n d , t h r e w R.W. against a w a l l . R.W., who w a s t h e n o n l y t w e n t y -
two months old, suffered a broken leg as a result of the
incident. I n November, 1 9 7 6 , M.F., then s i x years o l d , arrived
a t school w i t h a swollen upper l i p . M.F. told her teacher t h a t
h e r m o t h e r had struck her with a switch. I n t h e f a l l of 1979,
M.F. I s t e a c h e r o b s e r v e d b r u i s e s on M.F. ' s l e g and f i n g e r m a r k s o n
h e r arm. M.F. told her teacher that " t h e man" who was l i v i n g
w i t h h e r m o t h e r a t t h e t i m e had k i c k e d h e r and g r a b b e d h e r arm.
I n January, 1 9 8 0 , M.F. missed one day of school. The n e x t d a y
M.F. t o l d h e r s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l t h a t C y r u s Watson had s t r u c k h e r
and that she suffered cracked ribs as a r e s u l t o f the blow.
Watson was l i v i n g w i t h t h e m o t h e r a t t h e t i m e .
A public health nurse, Lil Anderson, had several contacts
with the children. I n 1 9 7 6 , L i l A n d e r s o n made h e r f i r s t v i s i t t o
t h e f a m i l y home. She found t h e home t o be q u i t e d i r t y and n o t e d
t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e or no f o o d i n t h e home. Ms. Anderson gave
the mother instructions regarding nutrition, cleanliness, and
appropriate dress for the children. When M s . A n d e r s o n worked
w i t h t h e f a m i l y on a r e g u l a r b a s i s , t h e h o u s e c o n d i t i o n s would
improve. When s h e d i d n ' t see t h e f a m i l y f o r a p e r i o d of about
one month she noticed the children's care would deteriorate.
Several complaints during the f ive-year period concerned t h e
children's general health and well-being. In June, 1978, a
s o c i a l w o r k e r found J . F . s t a n d i n g on Rimrock Road a t 1 1 : 3 0 p.m.
H e had b e e n r e p o r t e d s t a n d i n g t h e r e f o r t h r e e and o n e - h a l f hours.
J.F. stated that he had left his mother's home because his
m o t h e r ' s t h e n husband had u p s e t him.
I n 1 9 7 9 , M.F. came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h K a t h y Rumph, a school
t e a c h e r a t Newrnan E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l . A t Newman, M.F. was p l a c e d
i n a p r o g r a m c a l l e d t h e r e s o u r c e room. To q u a l i f y f o r p l a c e m e n t
i n t h e r e s o u r c e room a s t u d e n t m u s t be a t l e a s t o n e y e a r b e h i n d
in normal grade level performance. Ms. Rumph t e s t i f i e d M.F.
showed s i g n s of s e v e r e e m o t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e . M.F. was d e f e n s i v e
and r e m a i n e d i s o l a t e d from t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n . She was u n a b l e t o
p l a y w i t h o t h e r c h i l d r e n and a t times would t a l k "baby t a l k . "
While a t Newrnan, M.F. I s a p p e a r a n c e was g e n e r a l l y u n k e p t . Her
c l o t h e s were g e n e r a l l y d i r t y and i l l - f i t t i n g . On s e v e r a l o c c a -
s i o n s s h e came t o s c h o o l w i t h i n a p p r o p r i a t e d r e s s f o r t h e w e a t h e r
conditions. M.F. had a p h y s i c a l p r o b l e m c a u s i n g h e r to w e t t h e
bed a t n i g h t and would sometimes come t o s c h o o l a f t e r h a v i n g w e t
t h e bed and had n o t b a t h e d o r showered i n t h e m o r n i n g . M.F. told
Ms. Rumph that she was occasionally left alone for entire
weekends w i t h o u t food to eat. Ms. Rumph and M . F . ' s classroom
t e a c h e r a r r a n g e d t o f e e d M .F. b r e a k f a s t e v e r y d a y when s h e a r r i v e d
a t school. A f t e r M.F. was f e d a good b r e a k f a s t h e r a c a d e m i c p e r -
f o r m a n c e would improve m a r k e d l y .
I n December 1 9 7 9 , the f a m i l y moved to a n a r e a j u s t o u t s i d e
of B i l l i n g s known a s Lockwood. Sherry Lithander , the principal
o f Lockwood S c h o o l , had c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t a c t w i t h M.F. and J . F .
Ms. L i t h a n d e r t e s t i f i e d M.F. was p l a c e d i n a program s i m i l a r to
t h e p r o g r a m a t Newman S c h o o l . S p e c i a l a r r a n g e m e n t s were made to
f e e d M.F. e v e r y morning. Ms. L i t h a n d e r t e s t i f i e d M.F. of t e n came
t o s c h o o l w i t h d i r t y and i m p r o p e r c l o t h i n g . M.F. had p r o b l e m s i n
t h e classroom and t e n d e d t o f a n t a s i z e . A g a i n , M.F. was p l a c e d i n
a special l e a r n i n g p r o g r a m t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r h e r a c a d e m i c de-
f iciencies.
I n A p r i l 1 9 7 9 , M.F. was p l a c e d i n f o s t e r care. The s c h o o l
p e r s o n n e l r e c o g n i z e d a s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t i n M.F. I s physical
and e m o t i o n a l w e l l - b e i n g . M.F. was w e l l - d r e s s e d and w e l l - f e d and
began to f e e l b e t t e r about h e r s e l f . She became b e t t e r a c c e p t e d
b y h e r classmates. I n May 1 9 7 9 , M.F. was returned t o h e r mother
and h e r improvement s u b s i d e d .
Susan Betz a l s o had contact with M.F. a t Lockwood School
beginning i n December 1 9 7 9 . Ms. Betz conducted numerous tests
w i t h M.F. The t e s t r e s u l t s showed M.F. e x h i b i t e d some l e a r n i n g
disability. Ms. B e t z found M.F. to be two t o two and o n e - h a l f
years behind her academic age level. M.F. showed a certain
e v a s i v e n e s s which a t t r i b u t e d to h e r p e r f o r m a n c e a t s c h o o l and h e r
l a c k of f r i e n d s .
I n August, 1 9 8 0 , M.F. and R.W. were a g a i n p l a c e d in foster
care. Both Ms. Lithander and Ms. Betz noticed considerable
i m p r o v e m e n t i n M.F. ' s b e h a v i o r and a p p e a r a n c e d u r i n g t h e 1 9 8 0 - 8 1
school year. Ms. L i t h a n d e r a l s o had c o n t a c t w i t h R.W. during the
1 9 8 0 - 8 1 s c h o o l y e a r when R.W. was enrolled i n kindergarten. R.W.
showed s i g n s o f slow d e v e l o p m e n t and s u f f e r e d from e n v i r o n m e n t a l
and cultural deprivation which was attributed to her home
environment during her pre-school years.
Collette Melia, a neighbor of the family at Lockwood,
testified about the c h i l d r e n ' s home c o n d i t i o n s . She t e s t i f i e d
t h a t o n s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s s h e f e d R.W. b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d would
ask h e r f o r food. On o n e o c c a s i o n Mrs. Melia o b s e r v e d R.W. out-
side the family's t r a i l e r a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 : 1 5 a.m. trying to
g e t in. A l t h o u g h t h e m o r n i n g t e m p e r a t u r e was v e r y c o l d , R.W. was
wearing only a l i g h t jacket. R.W. was c r y i n g b u t no o n e would
o p e n t h e d o o r f o r R.W. to e n t e r t h e h o u s e .
On o n e o c c a s i o n i n August 1979, the mother l e f t the three
c h i l d r e n sJ-eeping i n t h e t r a i l e r . A r o a s t which was l e f t c o o k i n g
i n t h e o v e n c a u g h t f i r e and n e i g h b o r s had t o remove t h e three
children.
On A u g u s t 8 , 1 9 8 0 , M.F. and R.W. were p l a c e d i n f o s t e r care
w i t h Kaye N e l s o n . Mrs. N e l s o n t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e g i r l s 1 con-
d i t i o n when t h e y f i r s t a r r i v e d a t h e r h o u s e . Mrs. N e l s o n s t a t e d
t h e g i r l s seemed d e s p e r a t e f o r l o v e and a f f e c t i o n and would c l i n g
o n a n y o n e who would allow i t . When t h e g i r l s a r r i v e d t h e y were
b o t h v e r y h u n g r y and R.W. was v e r y s k i n n y . The two l a c k e d t a b l e
m a n n e r s and would h i d e f o o d i n t h e i r rooms. M.F. had a v e r y l o w
self-esteem. Although R.W. could talk, M.F. usually had to
t r a n s l a t e f o r R.W. when s h e s p o k e . A t the t i m e of the hearing
b o t h g i r l s showed e x c e l l e n t o v e r a l l i m p r o v e m e n t . R.W. was b e t t e r
a b l e t o communicate and had a n o r m a l a p p e t i t e . M.F. I s feelings
a b o u t s c h o o l and herself had undergone a drastic change. The
c h i l d r e n had made f r i e n d s and were g e t t i n g a l o n g q u i t e w e l l a t
school. While t h e g i r l s were i n f o s t e r care t h e y had s p o r a d i c
home v i s i t s w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r . The v i s i t s d i d n o t show s i g n s of
a n y i m p r o v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e m o t h e r and t h e two g i r l s .
During some home v i s i t s t h e m o t h e r would leave the g i r l s with
J .F. t o b a b y s i t when s h e had o t h e r p l a n s .
Judy Robinson, a social worker, testified about her contact
with the children. A f t e r J a n u a r y 1 9 7 9 , t o t h e t i m e of t h e f o s t e r
care placement, the Welfare Department received twenty-one
c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a r e from e i g h t t o t e n d i f f e r e n t
people.
Dr. Robert E. Tompkins p e r f o r m e d a psychological evaluation
of t h e mother i n February 1981. The r e s u l t s of t h e tests i n d i -
c a t e d t h e m o t h e r p o s s e s s e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t h a t would inter-
f e r e with her a b i l i t y to p r o v i d e a s t a b l e environment for the
children. Dr. Tompkins f o u n d t h e m o t h e r had limited intellect
and demonstrated poor judgment. Dr. Tompkins testified the
m o t h e r was l i k e l y t o r e s p o n d t o h e r n e e d s f i r s t and t h o s e of t h e
children later. Dr. Tompkins t e s t i f i e d g i v e n t h e m o t h e r ' s per-
s o n a l i t y and p r o b l e m s , c o u n s e l i n g would n o t be b e n e f i c i a l . Dr.
Tompkins f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d it was u n l i k e l y t h e m o t h e r would e v e r
change to provide a stable environment for the children.
On April 30, 1980, SRS filed a petition for temporary
investigative authority relative to J . F . , M.F. and R.W. in the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Thirteenth Judicial District. On December
4 , 1 9 8 0 , SRS f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y and a u t h o r i t y
t o a s s e n t t o a d o p t i o n of the children. H e a r i n g s were h e l d on
December 29, 1980, April 10, 1981, and April 15, 1981. The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law on
July 2, 1981. Judgment was entered on A u g u s t 4 , 1981. The
District Court d e c l a r e d J.F, M.F. and R.W. t o be y o u t h s i n need
of c a r e and o r d e r e d the parental r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l mother
terminated. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y
of t h e y o u t h s be awarded t o SRS w i t h c o n s e n t to a d o p t i o n . J.F.
was o r d e r e d t o be p l a c e d i n t h e c a r e of t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r . The
mother a p p e a l s .
The i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l a r e a s f o l l o w s :
1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to a p p o i n t
c o u n s e l f o r t h e m o t h e r a t t h e time of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r tempo-
rary investigative authority.
2. Whether t h e a t t a c h i n g of a " r e p o r t to t h e c o u r t " to t h e
p e t i t i o n f o r p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y and a u t h o r i t y to a s s e n t to adop-
tion constitutes reversible error.
The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d have a p p o i n t e d
counsel to represent her at the time SRS f i l e d the temporary
i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y (TIA). She c l a i m s t h e p e r i o d from t h e
issuance of t h e T I A t o t h e f i l i n g of the p e t i t i o n f o r permanent
c u s t o d y is u s e d l a r g e l y t o c o m p i l e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t e r m i n a -
tion of the parent's rights. Thus, the mother contends the
assistance of counsel is essential to insure due process.
I n L a s s i t e r v. D e p a r t m e n t of S o c i a l S e r v i c e s ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 4 5 2 U.S.
18, 68 L.Ed.2d 640, 1 0 1 S.Ct. 2153, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme
Court granted certiorari to consider a natural mother's claim
that appointment of counsel is essential at the termination
stage. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d :
" I n sum, t h e C o u r t ' s p r e c e d e n t s s p e a k w i t h o n e
v o i c e a b o u t what ' fundamental f a i r n e s s ' h a s
m e a n t when t h e C o u r t h a s c o n s i d e r e d t h e r i g h t
t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l , and w e t h u s d r a w from
them t h e presumption t h a t an i n d i g e n t l i t i g a n t
h a s a r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l o n l y when, i f
h e loses , he may be d e p r i v e d o f h i s p h y s i c a l
liberty. I t is a g a i n s t t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t
a l l t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s i n t h e due p r o c e s s
d e c i s i o n m u s t be m e a s u r e d .
"The c a s e o f Mathews v. E l d r i d g e , 424 U.S.
3 1 9 , 3 3 5 , p r o p o u n d s t h r e e e l e m e n t s to be
evaluated in deciding what due process
requires, viz., the private interests at
s t a k e , t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s i n t e r e s t , and t h e r i s k
t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e s used w i l l l e a d t o er-
r o n e o u s d e c i s i o n s . W e m u s t b a l a n c e t h e s e ele-
m e n t s a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r , and t h e n s e t t h e i r
n e t w e i g h t i n t h e s c a l e s a g a i n s t t h e presump-
t i o n t h a t t h e r e is a r i g h t to a p p o i n t e d coun-
sel o n l y where the indigent, if he is
u n s u c c e s s f u l , may lose h i s p e r s o n a l f r e e d o m . "
452 U.S. a t 26.
I n - siter,
L a - --
s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h e t r i a l
c o u r t d i d n o t err by f a i l i n g t o appoint counsel for a natural
mother in a termination proceeding where the mother did not
a p p e a r a t t h e i n i t i a l c u s t o d y h e a r i n g and d i d n o t e v e n s p e a k to
her retained lawyer after being notified of the termination
hearing. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d , g i v e n t h e f a c t s
b e f o r e them i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r case, t h e t h r e e E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s
d i d n o t overcome t h e presumption a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d
counsel, and that due process did not therefore require the
a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l .
This Court agrees with the United States Supreme Court's
h o l d i n g i n L a s s i t e r , s u p r a , and h a s h e l d t h a t t h e same r a t i o n a l e
s h o u l d be a p p l i e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p p o i n t m e n t of counsel
i s n e c e s s a r y a t t h e TIA s t a g e as w e l l as t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s t a g e .
In, Matter o f M.D.Y.R. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 521, 582 P.2d 758, a
n a t u r a l mother claimed t h e l a c k of appointed counsel a t a tem-
p o r a r y c u s t o d y h e a r i n g d e p r i v e d h e r of d u e p r o c e s s . T h i s Court
held:
" I t is c o n t e n d e d on b e h a l f o f t h e m o t h e r t h a t
i n t h i s case, a t t h e h e a r i n g f o r t e m p o r a r y
l e g a l c u s t o d y , it s h o u l d h a v e b e e n m a n d a t o r y
t h a t t h e c o u r t a p p o i n t counsel to r e p r e s e n t
the mother. The statute, (secti o n
1 0 - 1 3 1 0 ( 1 2 ) , R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now c o d i f i e d as sec-
t i o n 41-3-401(12), MCA), however, is n o t
c o u c h e d i n m a n d a t o r y l a n g u a g e , and s t a t u t o r i l y
a t l e a s t w e must s a y t h a t t h e m a t t e r of
appointment of c o u n s e l , whether f o r temporary
o r p e r m a n e n t l e g a l c u s t o d y r is l e f t t o t h e
d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . " 582 P.2d a t 764.
S e c t i o n 41-3-401(12), MCA, states, " [ t l h e c o u r t may a t a n y
t i m e on i t s own m o t i o n o r t h e motion of any p a r t y appoint a
guardian ad litem for the youth or counsel for any indigent
party. I' T h u s , as w e s t a t e d i n -
M.D.Y.R. -- t h e l a n g u a g e i s d i s c r e -
.
t i o n a r y and a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l is n o t mandated i n e v e r y case.
A s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n Lassiter, s u p r a , t h e r e
is a p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t t o a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l and o n l y
if t h e t h r e e E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s overcome t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n w i l l d u e
-
p r o c e s s r e q u i r e appointment of c o u n s e l . The t h r e e f a c t o r s : pri-
v a t e i n t e r e s t s , g o v e r n m e n t ' s i n t e r e s t and r i s k of e r r o n e o u s d e c i -
s i o n s do n o t overcome t h e presumption i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . The
private interests are the parent's desires and rights to the
c u s t o d y o f h e r n a t u r a l b o r n c h i l d r e n and t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r i g h t to
l i v e a b o u n t i f u l l i f e f r e e of a b u s e and n e g l e c t . The g o v e r n m e n t
has i n t e r e s t s i n t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e r i g h t s of
t h e p a r e n t s as w e l l as a n i n t e r e s t i n a n a c c u r a t e and j u s t d e c i -
sion. Lastly, w e m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e r i s k t h a t a p a r e n t w i l l be
erroneously stripped of t h e i r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s because t h e y were
not represented by counsel. The United States Supreme C o u r t
w e i g h e d t h e t h r e e f a c t o r s i n ---s s i t e r s t a t i n g :
La --
.-
" I f , i n a g i v e n case, t h e p a r e n t ' s i n t e r e s t s
were a t t h e i r s t r o n g e s t , t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t s
were a t t h e i r w e a k e s t , and t h e r i s k s of e r r o r
were a t t h e i r p e a k , it c o u l d n o t be s a i d t h a t
t h e E l d r i d g e f a c t o r s d i d n o t overcome t h e pre-
s u m p f l o n a g a i n s t t h e r i g h t to a p p o i n t e d coun-
s e l , and t h a t d u e p r o c e s s d i d n o t t h e r e f o r e
r e q u i r e t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l . " 452 U.S.
a t 31.
In the present case, although the parent's interests are
strong, the S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t is n o t weak n o r were t h e r i s k s of
error a t a peak. The S t a t e h a s a g r e a t i n t e r e s t i n a j u s t and
a c c u r a t e d e c i s i o n f o r a l l p a r t i e s c o n c e r n e d and t h e r i s k of e r r o r
is u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d . The m o t h e r c l a i m s t h a t t h e TIA s t a g e t o t h e
t e r m i n a t i o n s t a g e is s i m p l y f o r t h e c o m p i l a t i o n of e v i d e n c e and
that assistance of counsel is therefore essential. However,
c o u n s e l was a p p o i n t e d f o r t h e m o t h e r on December 8 , 1980. The
hearings on the petition for permanent custody were held on
December 2 9 , 1 9 8 0 , A p r i l 1 0 , 1 9 8 1 and A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 . We feel
the appointment of counsel p r i o r to these hearings did accom-
m o d a t e t h e m o t h e r ' s r i g h t t o d u e process. W e cannot compare t h i s
situation to that of a criminal proceeding where a defendant
requires e f f e c t i v e counsel t o a d v i s e him o f his constitutional
r i g h t s a t the pretrial stage. Here, t h e r e was no i n v e s t i g a t i o n
b y t h e SRS w h i c h would be a l t e r e d b y t h e e n t r a n c e of l e g a l coun-
sel. In addition, t h e m o t h e r d i d n o t r a i s e s u f f i c i e n c y of the
e v i d e n c e as a n i s s u e on a p p e a l . I f t h e r e was a s p e c i f i c e v i d e n -
t i a r y problem w i t h t h e SRS i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t seems the mother
would h a v e r a i s e d it, although she did not. Thus, we h o l d t h e
mother was not deprived of her right to due p r o c e s s of law.
The m o t h e r f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h e s u b m i s s i o n of a s o c i a l w o r k e r ' s
"report to the court" along with the petition for permanent
custody is reversible error. The section governing abuse,
n e g l e c t and d e p e n d e n c y p e t i t i o n s n e i t h e r r e q u i r e s n o r p r o h i b i t s
a t t a c h i n g a s o c i a l worker's report along with the p e t i t i o n . See
s e c t i o n 41-3-401, MCA. T h u s , w e m u s t l o o k a t t h e f a c t s of e a c h
case t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r s u c h a r e p o r t w i l l c o n s t i t u t e rever-
sible error.
I n Matter of Moyer ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 3 Mont. 2 0 8 , 567 P.2d 47, this
C o u r t d i d n o t r u l e s p e c i f i c a l l y on w h e t h e r a p r e h e a r i n g r e p o r t i n
s u p p o r t of a p e t i t i o n f o r p e r m a n e n t c u s t o d y is e r r o r . However,
we did state:
" I t is t r u e t h a t a j u d g e v i o l a t e s d u e p r o c e s s
r e q u i r e m e n t s i f he b a s e s h i s c h i l d c u s t o d y
o r d e r on s t a t e m e n t s i n a w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t
r e p o r t w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h e a u t h o r s of t h e
r e p o r t t o t e s t i f y a t a h e a r i n g and be s u b j e c t
t o cross-examination [ c i t a t i o n s omitted ] In .
a c i v i l c a s e , s u c h as t h e o n e a t b a r , which is
t r i e d before the court without a jury, t h e r e
is a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l judge h a s
disregarded all inadmissible evidence in
r e a c h i n g h i s d e c i s i o n . O t S u l l i v a n v. Simpson,
1 2 3 Mont. 3 1 4 , 212 P.2d 435; H e a l y v. F i r s t
N a t i o n a l Bank, 1 0 8 Mont. 1 8 0 , 8 9 P.2d 5 5 5 . "
567 P.2d a t 49.
The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r e r r o r would be g r e a t w h e r e a t r i a l c o u r t
relied on reports not supported by examination at a custody
hearing. However, here the report i n q u e s t i o n was a u t h o r e d b y
Judy Robinson, a s o c i a l w o r k e r , who d i d t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g .
Her t e s t i m o n y a t t h e h e a r i n g was e s s e n t i a l l y w h a t was c o n t a i n e d
i n the report. The m o t h e r d i d h a v e ample o p p o r t u n i t y to cross-
examine J u d y Robinson and p o i n t o u t a n y h e a r s a y s t a t e m e n t s or
defects in the report at the hearing. A s s t a t e d above, t h e r e is
a presumption that the trial court has disregarded all inad-
m i s s i b l e m a t e r i a l i n making i t s d e c i s i o n . Here, t h e m o t h e r h a s
c i t e d n o t h i n g to r e b u t t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n .
The m o t h e r a r g u e s t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n s e v e n t s which a r e too
remote i n t i m e to be o f p r o b a t i v e v a l u e . I n Matter of K . V . and
K.A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) , -.------ Mont . P .2d -- , 39 S t . R e p . 1582;
t h i s C o u r t r u l e d on t h i s e x a c t argument s t a t i n g :
" A p p e l l a n t b e l i e v e s t h a t it was i m p r o p e r f o r
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o base i t s t e r m i n a t i o n
d e c i s i o n o n e v e n t s which o c c u r r e d b e f o r e KA
was a d j u d i c a t e d t o be a y o u t h i n need o f c a r e .
A p p e l l a n t would r e q u i r e a s h o w i n g by t h e S t a t e
t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h
p r e d a t e d t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n c o n t i n u e d to e x i s t
a t t h e t i m e of t e r m i n a t i o n . While such a
s h o w i n g m i g h t be a p p r o p r i a t e i f S R S had o n l y
r e c e n t l y begun t o work w i t h t h e f a m i l y , i n a
s i t u a t i o n where t h e p a r e n t h a s been a s s i s t e d
and m o n i t o r e d b y SRS o v e r a p e r i o d o f y e a r s
and t h e f a m i l y e n v i r o n m e n t h a s n o t y e t s t a b i -
lized and perhaps even d e t e r i o r a t e d , to
r e q u i r e more would beg f o r e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n a t
t h e expense of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . " 39
St.Rep. a t 1585.
Here, SRS h a s had contact with the f a m i l y s i n c e 1967. We
c a n n o t s a y t h a t a n y o f t h e e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e p o r t was
too remote t o be o f p r o b a t i v e v a l u e and t h u s i n a d m i s s i b l e a t t h e
custody hearing.
We feel compelled to mention t h a t although t h e mother has
r e l i e d h e a v i l y on M a t t e r of Swan ( 1 9 7 7 ) t 1 7 3 Mont. 3 1 1 , 5 6 7 P.2d
898, t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e a r e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from --
Swan. In
Swan,
..
--
SRS f i l e d several w r i t t e n reports with the p e t i t i o n for
permanent custody. The a u t h o r s of t h e reports d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t
the custody hearing. I n f a c t , t h e e n t i r e proceeding w a s peppered
w i t h h e a r s a y e v i d e n c e which was a l s o a l l o w e d a s t e s t i m o n y a t t h e
hearing. For t h a t reason t h i s Court r e v e r s e d . However, in the
p r e s e n t case t h e a u t h o r of t h e r e p o r t d i d t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g
a n d t h e m o t h e r was a l l o w e d to c r o s s - e x a m i n e . W f i n d no e rr o r i n
e
t h e s u b m i s s i o n of t h e r e p o r t when t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d g i v e n
these circumstances.
We a l s o find it necessary to comment upon a d i s c r e p a n c y i n
t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l custody order. The r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s of
the order state:
" 3 . I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h e p a r e n t a l
r i g h t s of [C.W.], n a t u r a l m o t h e r of t h e above-
named y o u t h s [M.F. J . F . and R.W.] , a r e ter-
minated.
"5. I T I S HEREBY ORDERED t h a t t h e p e r m a n e n t
c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l of t h e above-named
y o u t h s be awarded t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l
a n d R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s of t h e S t a t e of
Montana, and a representative of the
Department of Social and Rehabilitation
S e r v i c e s be a u t h o r i z e d t o a p p e a r i n any C o u r t
w h e r e a d o p t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s a r e p e n d i n g con-
c e r n i n g [M.F.] and [R.W.] and a s s e n t to adop-
tion.
"6. I T I S HEREBY ORDERED that [J.F.] be
p l a c e d w i t h [C.W. 1 ."
The e f f e c t o f t h i s o r d e r a s to J . F . is to t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l
r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l m o t h e r , p l a c e l e g a l c u s t o d y i n t h e S R S y e t
give physical custody to the natural mother. While after a
f i n d i n g o f a b u s e and n e g l e c t a t a d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g t h e t r i a l
c o u r t may allow t h e p a r e n t s to r e t a i n physical c u s t o d y of the
b)
children pursuant to s e c t i o n 41-3-406h(a), MCA. , once p a r e n t a l
r i g h t s are t e r m i n a t e d p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y by t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s is
no l o n g e r an a l t e r n a t i v e . S e c t i o n 41-3-611, MCA, states:
"-f e c t -o f d e c r e e (1) An o r d e r f o r t h e term-
E f-
i n a t i o n of t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p
d i v e s t s t h e c h i l d and t h e p a r e n t s of a l l l e g a l
r i g h t s , p o w e r s , i m m u n i t i e s , d u t i e s , and o b l i -
g a t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t to e a c h o t h e r as p r o v i d e d
i n t i t l e 4 0 , c h a p t e r 6, p a r t 2, e x c e p t t h e
r i g h t o f t h e i n h e r i t from t h e p a r e n t . "
Here, it a p p e a r s t h e lower c o u r t o n l y i n t e n d e d t o t e r m i n a t e
t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f M.F. and R.W. and w e remand t o t h e lower
c o u r t f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r .
J u d g m e n t is a f f i r m e d i n p a r t and remanded t o e n t e r a p r o p e r
f i n a l custody order.
W e concur: