Case Title: Simon v. Simon

Citation: 461 P.2d 851

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1969-11-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
461 P.2d 851 (1969) Bruce T. SIMON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Nancy Colleen SIMON, Defendant and Appellant. No. 11636. Supreme Court of Montana. Submitted September 19, 1969. Decided November 12, 1969. Sandall, Moses & Cavan, Charles F. Moses, Billings (argued), for defendant and appellant. *852 Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson & Gallagher, George C. Dalthorp, (argued), John M. Dietrich, Jr., Billings (argued), for plaintiff and respondent. JAMES T. HARRISON, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from an order denying defendant's petition wherein she sought to be awarded the custody of two minor children. From the record it appears that a divorce action was instituted by the plaintiff, Bruce T. Simon, in 1966, and on January 4, 1967 plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce and defendant, Nancy Colleen Simon, was, pursuant to an agreement of the parties approved by the court, granted custody of the two minor children. Thereafter plaintiff filed a petition for modification of the divorce decree, an order to show cause was issued to the defendant, and the matter heard on December 5, 1967. Following this hearing the district court entered an order awarding custody of the children to the plaintiff. Defendant filed notice of appeal on December 8, 1967. On July 15, 1968, defendant requested dismissal of her appeal and it was dismissed. Immediately thereafter, and on July 31, 1968, defendant verified a petition for modification of the decree, seeking custody of the children. This petition was not filed in the district court until September 6, 1968. An order to show cause was issued to the plaintiff and the petition was heard by the court in September. Further evidence was presented in November and on December 9, 1968, the district court by order continued the custody in the plaintiff and this appeal followed. Defendant sets forth three issues on this appeal. (1) That the district court decision is contrary to the extant case law and statutory provisions of the state of Montana, (2) That the evidence does not support the court's order, (3) That for these reasons there has been an abuse of discretion constituting reversible error. Plaintiff states the sole issue is whether there was credible testimony to uphold the court's finding that there has been no material change in circumstances since the prior hearing warranting a change in custody. At the outset it should be noted that the same judge presided at all hearings in connection with these applications for modification of the custody decree. No purpose would be served by setting out in detail the testimony received by the court in these hearings. The first hearing can be summed up by quoting the judge's remarks at the conclusion of the two day hearing on the first modification petition. In the presence of all parties he said: The court then directed that the decree be modified so as to give custody of the children to the plaintiff, and such an order was entered on December 6, 1967, and filed the following day. As before related, defendant appealed but later requested that her appeal be dismissed. In such a situation defendant stands in the same position as one who failed to appeal. What this Court said in Butler v. Brownlee, Mont., 451 P.2d 836, 26 St.Rep. 90, is therefore applicable. In other words, the court found defendant not to be a fit and proper person to have the custody of her children, and that finding is conclusive between the parties. This is not to say however that such finding may not be again inquired into insofar as the welfare of the children are concerned. In Anderson v. Anderson, 145 Mont. 244, 400 P.2d 632, we stated: We have repeatedly held that custody of minor children should not be changed unless it can be shown that there was a substantial change in circumstances since the previous order was entered. As we set it forth in Trudgen v. Trudgen, 134 Mont. 174, 329 P.2d 225: See also, Altmaier v. Altmaier, 135 Mont. 404, 340 P.2d 829. This Court is well aware of section 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947, which provides in pertinent part: We also have in mind that in the case of Cleverly v. Stone, 141 Mont. 204, 378 P.2d 653, we quoted from Jewett v. Jewett, 73 Mont. 591, 237 P. 702, these words: With these guidelines in mind, what changes did defendant allege had occurred to require a change in the custody order? In her petition she stated that the paternal grandparents were caring for the children since plaintiff was in Montana State University at Bozeman; that the little girl had not attended nursery school but had been baby sat, had no children to play with; that plaintiff was planning on marriage (he was married on August 10, 1968 but as before related this petition was verified in July of 1968) and that he would not be able to give the time and attention the children need and require. Some similar matters were brought out in the testimony but all were carefully gone into in the court, witnesses produced and examined as to every facet questioned and little merit appeared to the various charges made by defendant. About all that could be said was that defendant claimed plaintiff was not caring for the children in the manner she would. Of course defendant's present contentions must be viewed in connection with the care she gave the children when she had them in her custody and about which the district judge commented: "Much of the time they have been in the care of their grandmother and great-grandmother, at other times they have been in the care of the paternal grandparents * * *." Since plaintiff had remarried at the time of the hearing in December 1968, both parties consented that the court might request the Child Welfare Division of the Department of Public Welfare in Bozeman to investigate and report on the home of plaintiff and his present wife at Bozeman. This investigation was made and the report was extremely favorable to plaintiff and his present wife. While some minor conflicts appear in the evidence, the district judge felt that the best interests of the children would be served if they were left in the care, custody and control of the plaintiff-father. We see no reason to disturb his judgment. *855 Certainly nothing in the way of credible evidence of changed circumstances appears in the record and it cannot be said that the district court abused its discretion in retaining custody of these children in their father. The order of the district court is affirmed. CASTLES, JOHN C. HARRISON and HASWELL, JJ., and THOMAS DIGNAN,[*] District Judge, concur. [*] THOMAS DIGNAN, District Judge, sitting in place of Justice JOHN W. BONNER.