Case Title: STATE EX REL C M J v DISTRICT CO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14285 I N THE SUPREME (3IUKt' OF THE S T m OF IWNTANA 1978 THE STATE aF I'KINTANA, ex rel. C.M.J., R e l a t o r , THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFTHESTATEOFMONTANA, INANDFORTHECOUNIYOF MISSOULA, THE HON. E. GARDNER BROWNLEE, JUDGE THEREQF, Respondent. ORIGINAL PmcEEDm: C o u n s e l of Record: For R e l a t o r : Klaus Sitte, L e g a l Services, Missoula, bbntana For Respordent: Fbbert Deschamps, 1 1 1 , County A t t o r n e y , Missoula, mntana Karen 'IWmend, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , Missoula, mntana Dennis Lind, Missoula, bbntana Filed : !?t\'t E 3 B 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. Relator has p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of super- v i s o r y c o n t r o l o r o t h e r appropriate w r i t d i r e c t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County, t h e Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, t o g r a n t v i s i t a - t i o n p r i v i l e g e s with t h e minor c h i l d J.L.B. and t o s t a y adoptive proceedings of J.L.B. pending outcome of r e l a t o r ' s appeal of t h e D i s t r i c t Court's termination of C . M . J . ' s cus- tody of t h e c h i l d . O n October 27, 1977, t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Services (SRS), by and through t h e County Attorney of Missoula County, f i l e d an a c t i o n i n D i s t r i c t Court t h e r e , seeking a determination t h a t t h e minor c h i l d J.L.B. is a youth i n need of c a r e and t h a t permanent custody of t h e c h i l d and a u t h o r i t y t o consent t o her adoption be granted SRS. A hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n extended over f o u r days, February 23 and 27, and March 6 and 7, 1978. Judge Brownlee, on March 29, 1978, issued f i n d i n g s and conclusions, and a judgment awarding permanent custody of J.L.B. t o SRS and authorizing t h e Department t o arrange and consent t o her adoption. Relator f i l e d n o t i c e of appeal from t h e D i s t r i c t Court determinations on A p r i l 1 0 , 1978, and a t t h e same t i m e , moved f o r , i n t e r a l i a , " V i s i t a t i o n Pending Appeal" and "Stay of Adoptive Proceedings Pending Appeal". Those motions were e n t e r t a i n e d a t hearing on April 13, 1978, and were denied. I n her p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l , r e l a t o r a s k s , i n e f f e c t , t h a t t h i s Court now g r a n t t h e motions which w e r e denied below. I n support of t h e p e t i t i o n , she a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e is no adequate remedy by appeal and t h a t , unless r e l i e f is granted by issuance of an appropriate w r i t , t h e c h i l d would s u f f e r detriment. She claims t h a t her motions are designed t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e s t a t u s quo be maintained, and contends t h a t only when s e r i o u s e v i l t h r e a t e n s t h e w e l - f a r e of t h e c h i l d should t h e r e l i e f she r e q u e s t s be denied. Reminding us t h a t it i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d which guides us i n c h i l d custody m a t t e r s , I n r e J.J.S. (1978), Mont. , 577 P.2d 378, 381, 35 St.Rep. 394, 397, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n , counsel f o r SRS contend t h a t , even w e r e it p o s s i b l e t o preserve t h e s t a t u s quo h e r e , t h a t i t s e l f would be harmful t o t h e c h i l d . O f considerable s i g n i f i c a n c e i s t h a t t h e guardian ad l i t e m of t h e c h i l d likewise contends t h a t preservation of t h e s t a t u s quo would be harmful t o t h e c h i l d . I n h i s b r i e f amicus c u r i a e , he urges t h a t w e deny t h e r e l i e f requested and thus, i n e f f e c t , uphold t h e District Court, whose d i s c r e t i o n has not been shown t o have been abused. W r i t s of supervisory c o n t r o l a r e issued i n circumstances of an emergency nature, making consideration of a cause of a c t i o n o r r i g h t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t s and due appeal t o t h i s Court an inadequate remedy, o r i n those circumstances when supervision of a t r i a l c o u r t , other than by appeal, is deemed necessary o r proper. Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M0nt.R.App.Civ.P. Phrased otherwise, a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l w i l l i s s u e i n those circumstances i n which t h e f a c t s show t h a t a p a r t y has no p l a i n , speedy o r adequate remedy a t law, i n which t h e r e i s no r i g h t of appeal from a D i s t r i c t Court's o r d e r , or i n which t h e D i s t r i c t Court has s o abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n a s t o j u s t i f y i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h i s Court. S t a t e ex r e l . Woodahl v. D i s - t r i c t Court (1975), 1 6 6 Mont. 31, 38-39, 530 P.2d 780, 785, and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Too, a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l is properly issued t o prevent a p a r t y ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n needless l i t i g a t i o n . S t a t e ex r e l . Buttrey Foods, Inc. v. D i s t r i c t Court (1966), 148 Mont. 350, 354, 420 P.2d 845, 847. I n a case such a s t h i s , p e t i t i o n e r , i n order t o p r e v a i l , must show t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court, which has a superior ad- vantage i n r u l i n g on such matters, c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e - t i o n . See I n re Adoption of Biery (1974), 164 Mont. 353, 357, 522 P.2d 1377, 1379. Relator has f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by denying her motion f o r v i s i t a t i o n pending outcome of t h e appeal; consequently, her p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t t o allow such v i s i t a t i o n i s denied. The ~ i s t r i c t Court, however, e r r e d i n denying t h e motion t o s t a y t h e adoptive proceedings pending t h e outcome of t h e appeal. This Court i s empowered t o i s s u e a w r i t i n a i d of an appeal which would otherwise be i n e f f e c t u a l . See Bennett v. Dowdall (1971), 157 Mont. 11, 13, 482 P.2d 572, 573. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, r e l a t o r ' s appeal would be i n e f f e c t u a l i f t h e c h i l d J.L.B. were adopted during t h e pendency of t h e proceedings. A w r i t thus w i l l i s s u e d i r e c t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o s t a y proceedings concerning t h e adoption of J.L.B. pending outcome of t h e appeal t o t h i s Court. P e t i t i o n f o r r e l i e f granted i n p a r t and denied i n p a r t . W e Concur: