Preview:

No. 13232
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

197 6

EMIL W.

ERHARDT,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

JOANNE S. ERHARDT, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t ,

Appeal from:

D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W, W, L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Berg, Angel, Andri.010 & Morgan, Bozeman, Montana C h a r l e s F. Angel a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondent : W i l l i a m E , G i l b e r t a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: Decided:

September 2 , 1976

SEP 2 1 lgl~

M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, g r a n t i n g a change of c u s t o d y of two minor boys from t h e mother t o t h e f a t h e r following t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e custody p r o v i s i o n s of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e . The d e t e r m i n a t i v e i s s u e i s whether s u f f i c i e n t evidence was p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o show a m a t e r i a l change i n circumstances w a r r a n t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e divorce decree. W h o l d t h e r e was n o t . e JoAnne S . E r h a r d t

The f a t h e r E m i l W . E r h a r d t and mother were d i v o r c e d A p r i l 1 4 , 1975.

They agreed a t t h a t time t h a t age s i x ;

JoAnne would r e c e i v e custody of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , E r i k W . , and T i l n e y J . , age seven.

Upon f i n d i n g t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s were

f i t and proper t o have c u s t o d y , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e agreement w i t h t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e and o r d e r e d t h a t JoAnne have custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t e n months each y e a r and E m i l two months each y e a r .

E m i l , however, was allowed t o keep p h y s i c a l

custody of t h e c h i l d r e n i n Bozeman u n t i l J u l y 15, 1975, t o g i v e JoAnne time t o g e t a job and e s t a b l i s h a home f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n California. JoAnne subsequently o b t a i n e d work a s an e x e c u t i v e t o accomodate
,

s e c r e t a r y and r e n t e d an apartment l a r g e enough the children.

On J u l y 9 , 1975, E m i l f i l e d a p e t i t i o n s e e k i n g

m o d i f i c a t i o n of the d i v o r c e d e c r e e t o o b t a i n permanent custody of t h e c h i l d r e n . He r e f u s e d t o d e l i v e r t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r The p e t i t i o n was h e a r d August 1, 1975 and

mother on J u l y 15, 1975.

E m i l was g i v e n permanent custody s u b j e c t t o JoAnne's r i g h t t o have t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e Christmas h o l i d a y s and f o r t h i r t y days each summer. JoAnne t h e n f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l .

This Court r e c e n t l y s e t f o r t h t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w i n Foss v . Leifer , Mont

.

, 550

P.2d 1309, 1311, 33 St.Rep. 528,

''In Montana i t h a s been f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n m a t t e r s of custody i s of a c o n t i n u i n g n a t u r e . Barbour v. Barbour, 134 Mont. 317, 330 P.2d 1093; Libra v. L i b r a , 154 Mont. 222, 462 P.2d 178. T h i s concept a l s o c o n t r o l s under t h e r e c e n t l y enacted Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, s e c t i o n 48-339, R.C.M. 1947, which c l e a r l y provides d i s t r i c t c o u r t s may n o t e x e r c i s e d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o modify a p r i o r custody decree u n l e s s two b a s i c elements a r e shown t o e x i s t : 1 ) new f a c t s o r f a c t s unknown t o t h e c o u r t a t t h e time t h e i n i t i a l decree was e n t e r e d demonstrate t h a t a change h a s occurred i n t h e circumstances of t h e c h i l d o r t h o s e of h i s c u s t o d i a n ; and 2) t h i s change i s s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant a m o d i f i c a t i o n i n o r d e r t o promote t h e p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . This b a s i c s t a n d a r d was a p p l i e d i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n long b e f o r e t h e enactment of t h e new law, and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of which law would b e a p p l i c a b l e under t h e f a c t s presented would have no b e a r i n g on t h e r e s u l t . J e w e t t v. J e w e t t , 73 Mont. 591, 237 P. 702; Trudgen v. Trudgen, 134 Mont. 174, 329 P.2d 225; Simon v. Simon 154 Mont. 193, 461 P.2d 851. I n reviewing o r d e r s which a f f e c t t h e custody of a c h i l d , t h i s Court i s mindful t h a t t h e primary duty of d e c i d i n g t h e proper custody of c h i l d r e n i s t h e t a s k of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Thus, a l l reasonable presumptions a s t o t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l be made. No r u l i n g w i l l be d i s t u r b e d absent a c l e a r showing t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n was abused. [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] . "
" 9 ~ 9~

*

The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o provide some s t a b i l i t y f o r custody arrangements i s f u r t h e r emphasized by s e c t i o n 48-339(1), R.C.M. 1947, of t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t , adopted by Montana i n 1975, which p r o v i d e s : N motion t o modify a custody decree may be made o e a r l i e r than two (2) y e a r s a f t e r i t s d a t e , u n l e s s t h e c o u r t permits i t t o be made on t h e b a s i s of a f f i d a v i t s t h a t t h e r e i s reason t o b e l i e v e t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment may endanger s e r i o u s l y h i s p h y s i c a l , mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h . " However, a s i n Foss, i t makes no d i f f e r e n c e h e r e whether t h e new law o r t h e o l d law c o n t r o l s , f o r b o t h e s t a b l i s h t h a t a m o d i f i c a t i o n of custody i s an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n u n l e s s premised
!I

upon a change in circumstances "sufficient to endanger the welfare of the child". The father contends the stability the life the children have settled into constitutes the necessary change in circumstances. Admitting that a change cannot occur in just three and one-half months, he argues it is the result of the children continuing to live with him in the same circumstances and home they have known throughout their lives. He notes the children's friends and

activities are the same as they have always been; the children have adjusted to the divorce and formed deeper ties with their father; and the mother has been absent from the home. He concludes

that to send the children to JoAnne in California would result in a total upheaval of their lives, contrary to their best interests. JoAnne, on the other hand, argues there has been no change in circumstances. She alleges the circumstances existing at the time of the hearing on Emil's petition were exactly those contemplated when the divorce decree was issued. We agree.

The divorce decree of April 14, 1975, expressly provided that the father was given temporary custody until July 15, 1975, for the sole purpose of allowing the mother time to obtain employment and provide a home for her children in California. Only

three and one-half months elapsed between the divorce decree and the hearing on Emil's petition for modification. JoAnne obtained employment in April 1975, and she rented an apartment in July 1975. She was prepared to receive the children on July 15, 1975, as previously agreed by the parties and ordered by the district court. No allegations of unfitness were made by either party during the hearing on Emil's petition and after investigation the district court found both parties were fit and proper parents. These facts

do not show a change in circumstances sufficient to endanger the

children.

To t h e c o n t r a r y , they show JoAnne d i d e x a c t l y what

she wa.s supposed t o do under t h e terms of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e and pursuant t o h e r agreement w i t h E m i l . The evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o show a change o f circums t a n c e s t h e r e f o r e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e custody p r o v i s i o n s of t h e d i v o r c e decree by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n and i t s o r d e r awarding custody t o t h e f a t h e r i s s e t a s i d e .

Justice

W Concur: e

1

4u s t i c e s . J



Download be43f8a5-0ee5-4bce-82a7-7a4937e76de7.pdf

Montana Law