Case Title: BROOKS v BROOKS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 13366

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-11-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13366 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1976 JUDY BROOKS, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -VS - C. ROBIN BROOKS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Edward Yelsa argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent: Radanich, Brolin and Reardon, Anaconda, Montana William Brolin argued, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: October 26, 1976 Decided : idoV 2 .: 1 9 7 6 M r . Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. .L/ This appeal is from an order of the d i s t r i c t court, County, modifying the original decree of divorce by transferring the care, custody and control of two minor children t o the father C. Robin Brooks, subject t o reasonable visitation rights on the. part of the mother, Judy Brooks. Judy Brooks and C. Robin Brooks were divorced i n September 1973. That decree awarded Judy the custody of the two minor children and support for those children. Shortly a f t e r the divorce Judy l e f t the s t a t e with her children accompanied by a married man who had l e f t h i s wife. They went t o California where they shared an apartment. After some nine months i n California, they returned t o Montana and Judy moved i n with her parents. A t the time she returned t o Montana, Judy was pregnant with a child of her companion and gave b i r t h t o t h i s child in October 1974. The visitation rights provided for by the decree t o the father in the original decree of divorce ceased during the California stay, but the father continued t o provide support for the children while they were i n California and for a period a f t e r they returned t o Montana. By court stipulation the father took the children into h i s home u n t i l a f t e r July's child was born i n October. After returning the children t o Judy he had visitation troubles,though he made efforts t o have h i s children. July moved from her parents home i n February 1975 t o a small home with a s i s t e r of the man she had been living with and that relationship continued though the man was still married t o someone else. Some months l a t e r they moved from Anaconda and set up housekeeping i n an apartment i n Garrison, Montana. Although Robin Brooks tried t o see and have h i s children on regular v i s i t a - tion privileges thereafter, he was unable t o do so and he cut off support payments alleging that it was not being used for h i s minor children. He petitioned for modification of the decree and a change of custody and on the day it was heard paid a l l delinquent payments. Following a f u l l hearing of the cause the presiding judge ordered a change of custody. The mother appeals. Two issues a r e before t h i s Court on appeal: 1) Was there sufficient evidence before the t r i a l court t o support i t s conclusions that it would be i n the best interests of the minor children t o transfer custody t o the father? 2) Did the court abuse i t s discretion i n transferring custody? W e w i l l discuss the issues as one. W e find there was sufficient evidence t o transfer custody t o the father and i n doing so there was no abuse of judicial discretion. This Court has long followed the rule that unless there i s a clear abuse of discretion by the t r i a l court, a decision on custody w i l l not be overruled on appeal. Love v. Love, 166 Mont. 303, 533 P.2d 280; Gilmore v. Gilmore, 166 Mont. 47, 530 P.2d 480; Anderson v. Anderson, 145 Mont. 244, 400 P.2d 632. I n these cited cases t h i s Court has committed i t s e l f t o the view that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration i n awarding custody and that it must of necessity, be l e f t largely t o the dis- cretion of the t r i a l judge. H e hears the testimony, sees the witnesses' demeanor and has a superior advantage in determining those d i f f i c u l t problems. Here, the d i s t r i c t court's finding for the father, the behavior of the natural mother and its ultimate effect on the children as they grow, warrant the decision. The father can provide a home and the s t a b i l i t y needed for the necessary healthy emotional growth of the children, plus the i n s t a b i l i t y of the mother i n her relationship with other men a r e sufficient factors t o support the t r i a l judge's decision. The judgment i s affirmed. - W e Concur: / /'- Chief Justice. , / , n. Jack Shanstrom, District s i t t i n g for Justice Wesley Castles.