Case Title: MATTER OF ASCHENBRENNER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 14610

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 14610 IN THE SUPFEDE C O W O F THE STATE O F RDJSEAM1 1979 I N THE MAllTER O F THE GUARDIANSHIP O F IXXAID ASCHENBIIENNER, TERRI L Y N N - , and JASON JACOB ASCHENBRE3N33, Minors. Appeal frm: D i s t r i c t Court of the Second Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Arnold O l s e n , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: L e w i s RDtering argued, Butte, mtana For Respondent: Leonard J. Haxby argued, Butte, kbntana Submitted: June 1 1 , 1979 Decided r J m i 7 ~isrs ~ U L a t3;S Filed: - M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mary Aschenbrenner, n a t u r a l mother of Ronald, T e r r i Lynn, and Jason Jacob Aschenbrenner, appeals from t h e find- i n g s , conclusions and order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, S i l v e r Bow County, granting letters of guardianship and custody of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n t o A. B. (Bud) and L. V. ( L i l l i a n ) Aschenbrenner, t h e p a t e r n a l grandparents. The f a c t s leading t o t h i s appeal are: On December 27, 1976, Mary Aschenbrenner by t h e t e r m s of a divorce decree was awarded t h e c a r e , custody, and c o n t r o l of her t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n , a t t h a t t i m e aged e i g h t , f o u r , and one and a h a l f years o l d . Following t h e divorce, t h e mother l i v e d alone with t h e c h i l d r e n u n t i l t h e middle of May 1977, when she began l i v i n g with one Jay McClosky. H e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with McClosky w a s stormy and following one p a r t i c u l a r i n c i d e n t , t h e mother asked t h e grandparents t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n while Mary found another p l a c e f o r h e r s e l f and t h e c h i l d r e n t o l i v e . The grandparents had custody of t h e c h i l d r e n from May 19 u n t i l June 9, 1977, when Mary resumed custody. P a r t of t h i s three-week period apparently coincided with her ex-husband's annual two-week summer v i s i t a t i o n period during which he sometimes l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n with h i s p a r e n t s while he was o u t working on t h e road. Following another i n c i d e n t with McClosky, Mary again requested t h e grandparents t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n on June 30, 1977. The whole family, including Mary, her ex-husband, t h e c h i l d r e n , and t h e grandparents, vacationed together over t h e Fourth of J u l y weekend. When t h e mother attempted t o o b t a i n t h e r e t u r n of t h e c h i l d r e n t h e following week, how- ever, she was denied. When she t r i e d t o e n l i s t t h e assis- t a n c e of t h e county a t t o r n e y , she was served with a c i t a t i o n and o r d e r t o show cause on J u l y 2 1 , 1977. The o r d e r t o show cause, dated J u l y 21, 1977, and i s s u e d i n response t o a p e t i t i o n f o r appointment of guardian of minors f i l e d by t h e grandparents on June 15, contained a p r o v i s i o n awarding temporary custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e grandparents. Subsequent t o t h e issuance of t h i s o r d e r t o show cause, s e v e r a l hearings over s e v e r a l months w e r e held by t h e D i s - t r i c t Court. A t t h e s e l a t e r hearings, t h e D i s t r i c t Court heard testimony from t h e p a r t i e s and from Roger LaVoie, a county s o c i a l worker. The c o u r t k e p t i n e f f e c t i t s g r a n t of temporary custody, modifying it a t t i m e s t o allow t h e mother reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s t o h e r c h i l d r e n on weekends. During t h e course of t h e proceedings, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e mother and t h e grandparents, e s p e c i a l l y t h e grandfather, was s t r a i n e d . The grandfather seemed t o embark on a course of i n t e r f e r i n g with o r hindering Mary's a t t e m p t s t o t a l k t o t h e c h i l d r e n on t h e phone o r otherwise v i s i t w i t h them. A s t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s well-being, t h e c o u r t questioned them i n chambers. They seemed t o express no s t r o n g p r e f e r - ence f o r l i v i n g w i t h e i t h e r t h e i r mother o r grandparents. According t o t h e s o c i a l worker's r e p o r t , however, t h e school work and a t t i t u d e of t h e e l d e s t c h i l d had markedly improved, t h e middle c h i l d had a p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward school and a l l t h r e e c h i l d r e n seemed t o be b e t t e r cared f o r by t h e grandparents. Although during h i s testimony t h e s o c i a l worker declined t o l a b e l Mary an " u n f i t " p a r e n t , he d i d c l a s s i f y her a s " d e f i c i e n t " i n some r e s p e c t s i n h e r a b i l i t y a s a p a r e n t . This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was based on h e r tendency t o " p a r t y " excessively, leaving t h e c h i l d r e n a l o n e , on her i n a b i l i t y t o make s u r e t h e c h i l d r e n a t t e n d e d school, and on h e r g e n e r a l l y u n s e t t l e d emotional s t a t u s and l i v i n g arrange- ments. I t was h i s recommendation t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n remain i n t h e custody of t h e grandparents. A f t e r maintaining t h e temporary custody s t a t u s f o r over a y e a r , t h e District Court, on August 1 4 , 1978, i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s and conclusions. S i g n i f i c a n t among i t s f i n d i n g s were t h a t t h e r e had been a m a t e r i a l change i n t h e circum- s t a n c e s of t h e mother s i n c e t h e e n t r y of t h e divorce decree; t h a t s h e had n o t had adequate, permanent housingaand had n o t > conducted h e r s e l f a s a f i t and proper mother by c o n t i n u a l l y going o u t and leaving t h e c h i l d r e n a l o n e and unattended. The District Court a l s o found t h a t while i n h i s mother's c a r e , t h e e l d e s t c h i l d ' s schoolwork s u f f e r e d m a t e r i a l l y b u t improved while i n t h e c a r e of h i s grandparents. The c o u r t found t h a t t h e mother was n o t a f i t and proper person t o have custody of t h e c h i l d r e n by v i r t u e of h e r i r r e s p o n s i b l e behavior and concluded t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e dependent and neglected. Based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s , t h e c o u r t ordered t h a t t h e grandparents be granted guardianship of t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h reasonable r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n i n t h e mother, i n c l u d i n g custody of t h e c h i l d r e n during June and J u l y . From t h i s o r d e r , t h e mother appeals. The i s s u e s presented f o r review on appeal are: 1. Whether t h e a p p e l l a n t was denied procedural due process by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of a temporary custody o r d e r without p r i o r n o t i c e and opportunity f o r a hearing? 2. Whether a guardianship proceeding may be used t o terminate t h e c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s of a n a t u r a l parent? 3. Whether t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding t h e guardianship and custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e respondents? The r i g h t of a p a r e n t t o custody of h i s c h i l d has been recognized by t h i s Court as being a fundamental c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l r i g h t . Matter of Guardianship of Doney (1977), Mont. 570 P.2d 575, 577, 34 St.Rep. 1107, 1110. I n view of t h i s , w e must, look c l o s e l y a t any a c t i o n by t h e S t a t e which i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h i s r i g h t . Our examination of t h e procedure u t i l i z e d i n t h e District Court i n t h i s case l e a d s u s t o conclude t h a t t h e termination of t h e mother's custody and t h e award of guardianship t o t h e grandparents was improper and must be reversed. The grandparents i n s t i t u t e d t h i s a c t i o n by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r appointment of guardian of minors. W e t h u s begin o u r a n a l y s i s by examining t h e s t a t u t e s governing t h e appointment of such guardians. P a r t 2, Chapter 5, T i t l e 91A, 1947 Revised Codes of Montana, now P a r t 2, Chapter 5, T i t l e 72 Montana Code Annotated. I n i t i a l l y , w e n o t e t h a t under s e c t i o n 91A-5-204, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 72-5-222(1) MCA, t h a t a " c o u r t may a p p o i n t a guardian f o r an unmarried minor i f - a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody have been terminated - o r suspended - by circumstances o r p r i o r c o u r t o r d e r . " The District Court i s r e q u i r e d , however, t o following very s p e c i f i c procedures i n t h e ap- pointment of t h e guardian: " (1) Notice of t h e t i m e and p l a c e of hearing of a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e appointment of a guardian of a minor i s t o be given by t h e p e t i t i o n e r i n t h e man- ner p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 91A-1-401 t o : " ( a ) t h e minor, i f h e i s f o u r t e e n (14) o r more y e a r s of age; " ( b ) t h e person who has had t h e p r i n c i p a l c a r e and custody of t h e minor during t h e s i x t y (60) days preceding t h e d a t e of t h e p e t i t i o n ; and " ( c ) any l i v i n g parent of t h e minor. " ( 2 ) Upon hearing, i f the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t a qua- l i f i e d person seeks appointment, venue i s proper, t h e required notices have been given, t h e require- ments of s e c t i o n 91A-5-204 have been m e t , and t h e welfare and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor w i l l be served by t h e requested appointment, it s h a l l make t h e appointment. I n other cases t h e c o u r t may d i s - m i s s t h e proceedings, o r make any o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e matter t h a t w i l l b e s t serve t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e minor." Section 91A-5-207, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 72-5-225 MCA. Under s e c t i o n 91A-5-207(3), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 72-5-224 MCA, t h e c o u r t i s authorized " i f necessary, [ t o ] appoint a temporary guardian with t h e s t a t u s of an ordinary guardian of a minor, -- b u t t h e a u t h o r i t y of - - a temporary guardian s h a l l not l a s t longer than 6 months." -- - - With these p r i n c i p l e s i n mind, we examine t h e sequence of events i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A s noted above, before any guardian may be appointed f o r a minor, - a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody must be terminated o r suspended by circumstances o r p r i o r court order. Both p a r t i e s concede t h a t t h e r e was no p r i o r c o u r t order terminating o r suspending t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t of custody. To t h e contrary, only s i x months p r i o r t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s a c t i o n , t h e mother was awarded custody of these children following her divorce. It thus becomes necessary t o determine whether t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody were "suspended - by circumstances" i n t h e language of s e c t i o n 75-5-222 (1) MCA. To so determine, we examine with p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e following sequence of events: May 19, 1977 -- The mother, a f t e r a f i g h t with her paramour, leaves t h e children with t h e grandparents while she looks f o r another place t o l i v e . This period of time coincides with her ex-husband's annual two-week v i s i t a t i o n period during which he o f t e n l e f t t h e children with h i s parents, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s . June 9, 1977 -- The mother resumes custody of t h e children. June 15, 1977 -- The grandparents f i l e t h e i r p e t i - t i o n f o r appointment of guardian of minors. This p e t i t i o n s t a t e d , apparently inaccurately, t h a t t h e children were presently i n t h e c a r e and cus- tody of t h e i r paternal grandparents and had been i n t h e i r custody s i n c e about May 18. June 20, 1977 -- The D i s t r i c t Court, based exclu- s i v e l y on t h e grandparents' p e t i t i o n and affording n e i t h e r n o t i c e nor hearing t o t h e mother, awards temporary custody of t h e children t o t h e grand- parents and sets J u l y 30 a s t h e hearing d a t e on whether t h e grandparents should be awarded perma- nent custody. June 30, 1977 -- The mother again leaves t h e c h i l - dren with t h e grandparents. J u l y 2, 3, 4 , 1977 -- The e n t i r e family, including t h e mother, her ex-husband, t h e children, and t h e grandparents, vacation together a t Canyon Ferry Lake. Although by t h i s t i m e t h e grandparents had been awarded temporary custody of t h e children, they neither discussed nor even mentioned t h i s f a c t t o t h e mother during t h i s family vacation. J u l y 21, 1977 -- The mother seeks a s s i s t a n c e from t h e County Attorney i n attempting t o regain custody of t h e children, a f t e r t h e grandparents have refused t o r e t u r n them. A t t h i s time, t h e mother f i r s t re- ceives n o t i c e of t h e order granting temporary cus- tody of t h e children t o the grandparents. From t h i s sequence of events, it i s obvious t h a t t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody had not been terminated by circumstances. I n f a c t , contrary t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e p e t i t i o n f o r guardianship, t h e mother had a c t u a l physi- c a l custody of t h e children a t t h e t i m e t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d by t h e grandparents and t h e order w a s issued by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Moreover, a t t h e t i m e t h e D i s t r i c t Court issued i t s order granting temporary custody of t h e children t o t h e grandparents, on June 17, a l l t h a t had happened t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e mother had somehow abandoned o r given up her p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody was t h a t she had l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n with t h e grandparents f o r a period of t h r e e weeks while she looked f o r another p l a c e t o l i v e . I n Matter of Guardianship of Doney (1977), Mont. , 570 P.2d 575, 34 St.Rep. 1107, t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d r e n l e f t them with h i s sister-in-law f o r a period of two months "while he composed himself and prepared t o t a k e t h e c h i l d r e n i n t o h i s home" and t h e r e a f t e r even signed guardianship papers, giving h i s consent t o give temporary custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o h i s sister-in-law. I n r e j e c t i n g t h e argument t h a t t h i s showed a n abandonment of p a r e n t a l c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s , we s t a t e d : "Surrender of custody of a minor c h i l d by a p a r e n t i s pre- sumed t o be temporary unless t h e contrary i s made t o ap- pear." Doney, 570 P.2d a t 577. Q u i t e simply, a t t h e t i m e of i s s u i n g i t s order g r a n t i n g temporary custody t o t h e grandparents, t h e D i s t r i c t Court had no evidence t h a t t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody had been suspended o r terminated by e i t h e r p r i o r c o u r t order o r circumstance. The requirements of s e c t i o n 91A-5-204 have n o t been met and t h e r e f o r e any order purporting t o appoint a guardian i s i n v a l i d . Beyond t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l question of t h e termination of t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody, t h e r e are pro- cedural e r r o r s which likewise r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l . A s noted above, p r i o r t o appointing a guardian f o r a minor, t h e r e must be n o t i c e given t o , among o t h e r s , any l i v i n g p a r e n t of t h e c h i l d . Thereafter, t h e r e must be a hearing a t which t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s required t o determine, i n t e r a l i a , t h a t t h e required n o t i c e s were given and t h a t a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody have been terminated. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r , though couched i n t e r m s of temporary custody, w a s issued i n response t o a p e t i t i o n f o r appointment of guardian of minors and was, i n e f f e c t , t h e appointment of a temporary guardian. Y e t , t h e r e was no n o t i c e t o t h e mother, hearing p r i o r t o t h e appointment of t h e temporary guardian, no determination t h a t t h e required n o t i c e s had been given, and no determination t h a t t h e mother's p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody had been terminated o r suspended. "The c o u r t ' s granting temporary custody t o t h e [grand- p a r e n t s ] without n o t i c e t o t h e mother w a s e r r o r . " Henderson v. Henderson (1977), - Mont . , 568 P.2d 177, 179, 34 St.Rep. 942, 944. Nor w a s t h i s e r r o r corrected by t h e f a c t t h a t t h e mother p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n l a t e r . A s w e s t a t e d i n Henderson: ". . . Regardless of any deficiency i n obtaining temporary custody, t h e aunt argues t h e i s s u e i s moot s i n c e a f u l l hearing on t h e m e r i t s of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody w a s held on J u l y 6, 1976. W e disagree. The t r a n s c r i p t on appeal i n d i c a t e s t h e d i s t r i c t judge conducting t h e hear- i n g on permanent custody mistakenly assumed t h a t another d i s t r i c t judge had conducted a hearing and found misconduct on t h e p a r t of t h e mother before he awarded temporary custody of t h e c h i l - dren t o t h e aunt. This temporary custody order i n e f f e c t c r e a t e d a presumption i n favor of t h e a u n t and s h i f t e d t h e burden of proof t o t h e mother, and w a s i n d i r e c t v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 48-333(1), R.C.M. 1947." 568 P.2d a t 180. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e D i s t r i c t Court w a s l e d t o b e l i e v e by t h e p e t i t i o n f i l e d by t h e grandparents t h a t t h e mother had abandoned t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e grandparents on May 18, 1977, and had n o t returned f o r them by June 15 when t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . This was i n c o r r e c t . A s t e s t i f i e d t o a t t h e hearing by t h e grandmother, t h e mother had returned f o r her c h i l d r e n on June 9, 1977, a f u l l week before t h e p e t i - t i o n was f i l e d . Indeed, it appears t h e mother had a c t u a l p h y s i c a l custody of t h e c h i l d r e n on t h e day t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d and on t h e day t h e o r d e r was i s s u e d . From t h e d a t e of t h e issuance of t h i s o r d e r , however, t h e mother labored under a n u n f a i r , i n a c c u r a t e p r e j u d i c i a l presumption t h a t s h e had abandoned h e r c h i l d r e n . This presumption n e c e s s a r i l y colored t h e subsequent proceedings t o t h e p o i n t t h a t any f i n a l o r d e r o r judgment based thereon must be reversed. F i n a l l y , any showing t h a t t h e grandparents may be a b l e t o prove a " b e t t e r " environment than can t h e mother i s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h i s i s s u e of custody as between t h e mother and t h e grandparents, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of t h e above- mentioned fundamental c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t of a p a r e n t t o custody of her c h i l d r e n . A s w e s t a t e d i n Doney: ". . . This ' b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d ' test, however, i s used only a f t e r a showing of depen- dency o r abuse o r n e g l e c t by t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t , a s defined i n s e c t i o n 10-1301, R.C.M. 1947, o r i n custody d i s p u t e s between two n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . . . . Without t h e r e q u i r e d s t a t u t o r y showing t h a t p e t i t i o n e r had abused o r neglected h i s c h i l d r e n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o deprive t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r of t h e i r custody. The s t a t e i s e n t i r e l y powerless t o deprive a n a t u r a l p a r e n t of t h e custody of h i s minor c h i l d r e n merely be- cause a d i s t r i c t judge o r a state agency might f e e l t h a t a nonparent has more f i n a n c i a l resources o r pursues a ' p r e f e r a b l e ' l i f e s t y l e . " 570 P.2d a t 578. ( C i t a t i o n s omitted. ) And i n Henderson: "The ' b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d ' test i s cor- r e c t l y used t o determine custody r i g h t s between n a t u r a l p a r e n t s i n d i v o r c e proceedings. I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n t h e 'equal r i g h t s ' t o custody which both t h e f a t h e r and mother possess under s e c t i o n 61-105, R.C.M. 1947, a r e weighed i n r e l a t i o n t o each p a r e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o provide b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l , mental, and emotional needs uDon t h e breakdown of t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . - L -~ ' F i t n e s s ' of each p a r e n t i s determined only - - - - - - - -- r e l a t i o n -- t o t h e o t h e r a n d x o t to s o c i e t y ~ g whole. However, where t h i r d p a r t i e s -- seek cust it has long been t h e law i n Montana t h a t t h e -- - - - -- r i g h t -- of t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t p r e v a i l s -- u n t i l a showing of - - a f o r f e i t u r e -- of t h i s r i g h t . Ex p a r Bourquin, 88 Mont. 118, 290 P. 250 (1930). Se a l s o Matter of F i s h e r , 169 Mont. 254, 545 P.2d 654, 33 St.Rep. 183 (1976). The Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t does n o t change t h i s law. This f o r f e i t u r e can r e s u l t only where t h e p a r e n t ' s conduct does n o t m e e t t h e minimum standards of t h e c h i l d abuse, n e g l e c t and dependency s t a t u t e s . " 568 P.2d a t 181-82. (Emphasis added.) I n t h e i n s t a n t case, t h e District Court heard only one person t e s t i f y t h a t t h e mother w a s " u n f i t " t o c a r e f o r her children,the grandfather. The i n v e s t i g a t i n g s o c i a l worker s p e c i f i c a l l y declined t o call t h e mother " u n f i t . " When t h e grandmother was asked her opinion, of t h e mother's c a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n from t h e divorce u n t i l J u l y 4 , 1977, she re- p l i e d : "A. I d o n ' t know when I ' m n o t t h e r e , b u t I ' v e t o l d you when I ' v e had them. What she does when she has them, I d o n ' t know. I always thought she was a p r e t t y good mother when-she had t h e c h i l d r e n . - - ---- I don' t know. 'I The District Court a l s o conducted an - i n camera examina- t i o n of t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n during which t h e following ex- change between t h e c o u r t and t h e e l d e s t c h i l d occurred: "THE COURT: You l i v e d with your mother i n June and July? "RONALD: (Witness nods a f f i r m a t i v e l y . ) "THE COURT: H o w d i d you g e t along? "RONALD: Not t o o good. A bunch of f i g h t i n g always. "THE COURT: What w e r e you f i g h t i n g about? "RONALD: I d o n ' t know. This one k i d , he caused a f i g h t down t h e r e . "THE COURT: Down on Park S t r e e t ? " RONALD : Yeah . "THE COURT: You - g o t along good with your mother, didn' t you? "RONALD: (Witness nods a f f i r m a t i v e l y . ) "THE COURT: You g e t along with your grandmother and grandfather? "RONALD: Yes." I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e above s p e c i f i c examples, t h e tran- s c r i p t i s r e p l e t e with demonstration by t h e mother of her continuing concern and c a r e f o r her c h i l d r e n . I n f a c t , a t one p o i n t , t h e grandfather threatened t o change h i s phone number because t h e mother was c a l l i n g t h e c h i l d r e n s o o f t e n . Throughout t h e proceedings, t h e mother has opposed t h e attempt by t h e grandparents t o o b t a i n permanent custody of t h e children. Clearly, from t h i s evidence, t h e D i s t r i c t Court w a s n o t warranted i n concluding t h a t t h e mother was n o t f i t t o c a r e f o r her children. Such evidence must be c l e a r and convincing t o j u s t i f y depriving a p a r e n t of custody of her children. Matter of J.L.B. (1979), Mont. I P. 2d I 36 St.Rep. 896, 909. The f a c t t h a t t h e grandparents may be a b l e t o provide a b e t t e r home i s e x a c t l y t h e kind of r a t i o n a l e condemned i n Doney. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e "dependent and neglected under t h e laws of t h e S t a t e of Montana." Yet, t h i s was a guardianship proceeding i n s t i - t u t e d by t h e p a t e r n a l grandparents, n o t a proceeding i n s t i - t u t e d t o have t h e c h i l d r e n declared dependent and neglected, as it must be, by t h e county a t t o r n e y under T i t l e 10, Chap- t e r 13, 1947 Revised Codes of Montana, now T i t l e 4 1 , Chapter 3, Montana Code Annotated. The D i s t r i c t Court could n o t v a l i d l y conclude t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were dependent and neglected. S i m i l a r l y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t h e mother t o be n o t a f i t and proper person t o have custody of her c h i l d r e n and terminated her custody r i g h t s . A s pointed o u t above, however, t h e termination of a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s must precede t h e appointment of a guardian f o r unmarried minors. Section 91A-5-204, and -207, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 72-5-222, and -225 MCA. Nowhere i n t h e record does anything appear concerning t h e termination of t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e f a t h e r of t h e s e c h i l d r e n . I n any event, a guardianship proceeding is n o t a proper means t o terminate a p a r e n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o custody of h i s o r h e r c h i l d r e n . A s w e s t a t e d i n Doney: ". . . A j u d i c i a l hearing and f i n d i n g of depen- dency and n e g l e c t under T i t l e 10, Chapter 13, R.C.M. 1947, o r j u d i c i a l f i n d i n g of w i l l f u l abandonment o r w i l l f u l nonsupport under sec- t i o n 61-205, R.C.M. 1347, are t h e e x c l u s i v e means by which a n a t u r a l p a r e n t may be involun- t a r i l y deprived of custody of h i s c h i l d r e n . I n t h e absence of such showing, t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o t h e custody of h i s minor c h i l d r e n . Section 61-105, R.C.M. 1947." 570 P.2d a t 577. A s a l a s t example, t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t o r y guardianship procedure was i n c o r r e c t . Under t h e s e proce- d u r e s , a District Court may, i f necessary, appoint a t e m - porary guardian of unmarried minors b u t t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e temporary guardian cannot l a s t longer than s i x months. I n t h e i n s t a n t proceedings, however, t h e o r i g i n a l o r d e r g r a n t - i n g temporary custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e grandparents was e n t e r e d i n June 1977. This temporary custody s t a t u s was continued by t h e D i s t r i c t Court u n t i l August 1978, a t o t a l o f f o u r t e e n months before permanent letters of guardianship w e r e i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The confusion i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s understandable. W e a r e a b l e t o i d e n t i f y a t l e a s t f i v e d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y schemes governing t h e termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o r t h e custody of c h i l d r e n o r both. T i t l e 1 0 , Chapter 13, R.C.M. 1947, now T i t l e 4 1 , Chapter 3 MCA (abused, neglected and dependent youth); T i t l e 48, Chapter 3, R.C.M. 1947, now T i t l e 40, Chapter 4 MCA (Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t ) ; s e c t i o n s 61-111, -112, R.C.M. 1347, now s e c t i o n s 40-6-233, and -234 MCA (remedy f o r p a r e n t a l abuse); T i t l e 61, Chapter 2, R.C.M. 1947, now T i t l e 40, Chapter 8 MCA; T i t l e 91A, Chapter 5, P a r t 2 , R.C.M. 1947, now T i t l e 72, Chapter 5, P a r t 2 (Guardianship of Minors). Nevertheless, while t h e r e i s some overlap i n t h e s e various procedures as t o general s u b j e c t m a t t e r , each i s used f o r a d i s t i n c t purpose and s e t s f o r t h s p e c i f i c proce- dures which must be followed before a v a l i d judgment o r o r d e r may be issued. To i n s u r e t h a t t h e minors involved r e c e i v e t h e f u l l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e s e l a w s , t h e s e procedures should be "rigorously followed." I n re Guardianship of Evans (1978), Mont. , 587 P.2d 372, 376, 35 St-Rep. 1768, 1773. D i s t r i c t Courts must i d e n t i f y and adhere t o t h e proper procedure and standards t o be used i n t h e proceedings before them. Only then w i l l t h e fundamental r i g h t s and r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between parent and c h i l d be f u l l y r e a l i z e d o r , when necessary, properly severed. The order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t i n g l e t t e r s of guardianship t o t h e grandparents i s reversed. W e concur: . A h i e f Just* i / J u s t i c e s