Case Title: MARRIAGE OF MIKKELSON v MIKKELSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-11-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14720 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WANDA LOUISE MIKKELSON, Petitioner and Respondent, -vs- RICHARD L . MIKKELSON , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable C.B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gary Wilcox, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Berger, Anderson, Sinclair & Murphy, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Sept. 20, 1979 Decided : NOV 2 1 193 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his i s an appeal from an o r d e r of t h e District Court of t h e ~ h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , t h e Honorable C. B. Sande presiding. The o r d e r , dated February 20, 1979, granted Wanda Mikkelson's p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e custody provision of t h e o r i g i n a l decree of d i s s o l u t i o n s o a s t o v e s t l e g a l custody of t h e minor c h i l d of t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o with Wanda Mikkelson, respondent herein, r a t h e r than with Richard Mikkelson, a p p e l l a n t herein. The p a r t i e s w e r e married on January 1 2 , 1974, and a c h i l d , Michelle Lanette, was born on May 11, 1974. I n August 1976 respondent f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n requesting t h a t t h e marriage of t h e p a r t i e s be dissolved and t h a t she be granted custody of t h e minor c h i l d . O n June 3 , 1977, a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n w a s entered granting l e g a l custody t o a p p e l l a n t . Testimony was contradictory a s t o why custody of Michelle w a s granted t o a p p e l l a n t . Respondent s t a t e d t h a t she con- sented t o granting custody t o a p p e l l a n t i n exchange f o r h i s promise t o o b t a i n a hardship discharge from t h e Navy so t h a t t h e p a r t i e s could attempt t o r e s o l v e t h e i r problems, most of which w e r e centered around a p p e l l a n t ' s absences from home. Appellant denies t h i s and s t a t e s t h a t respondent agreed t o g i v e him custody a f t e r he threatened her with a c o u r t b a t t l e because of her adulterous conduct. I n May 1978 a p p e l l a n t was granted a hardship discharge from t h e Navy because respondent, who had physical c o n t r o l of Michelle during t h i s t i m e , was involved i n a s e r i o u s automobile accident i n A p r i l 1978. There w a s no d i s p u t e i n t h e record t h a t , s i n c e her b i r t h , Michelle has been i n t h e custody of respondent with t h e exception of t h e t i m e t h e p a r t i e s resided j o i n t l y . Upon h i s r e l e a s e from t h e Navy i n A p r i l 1978, a p p e l l a n t returned t o Montana b u t moved t o Indianapolis, Indiana, s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r where he worked, went t o school, and w a s r e s i d i n g a t t h e time t h e p r e s e n t c o n f l i c t arose. O n Septem- ber 16, 1978, a p p e l l a n t came t o Roundup, Montana, where re- spondent w a s l i v i n g with Michelle, o s t e n s i b l y j u s t t o v i s i t h i s daughter. Instead, a f t e r taking c o n t r o l of Michelle under t h e pretense of v i s i t i n g r e l a t i v e s i n Roundup f o r an hour o r so, a p p e l l a n t returned t o Indiana with her. A f t e r t h e above i n c i d e n t , respondent sought counsel and on September 20, 1978, f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e custody provision of t h e o r i g i n a l decree of d i s s o l u t i o n , sup- ported by a f f i d a v i t . O n t h e b a s i s of t h e p e t i t i o n and a f f i - d a v i t , Judge Sande i s s u e d an order dated September 20, 1978, r e q u i r i n g t h e r e t u r n of t h e c h i l d t o Montana where she was t o remain with her mother pending t h e f i l i n g of c o u n t e r a f f i - d a v i t s and subsequent hearings. Appellant refused t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d t o Montana a f t e r being served with t h e p e t i t i o n and order on September 26, 1978. Proceedings were commenced by respondent i n Indiana t o enforce Judge Sande's order of September 20, 1978. A s a r e s u l t , a p p e l l a n t was ordered i n December 1978 t o r e t u r n Michelle t o Montana. A hearing on t h e m e r i t s was scheduled on January 1 0 , 1979. A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l was f i l e d with t h i s Court (Cause No. 14635), b u t t h e p e t i t i o n w a s denied without p r e j u d i c e on January 5, 1979, t o allow t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o proceed. A hearing was f i n a l l y held by t h e D i s t r i c t Court on January 23, 1979. ~ a s e d on t h e testimony presented a t t h e January 23 hearing, the c o u r t , on February 20, 1979, granted t h e r e l i e f requested by respon- d e n t and t r a n s f e r r e d l e g a l custody of Michelle t o her. It is from t h e c o u r t ' s order of February 20, 1979, t h a t t h i s appeal is taken. Two i s s u e s a r e before t h i s Court on appeal: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear and modify t h e custody provision of t h e o r i g i n a l decree of d i s s o l u t i o n within two years of t h e g r a n t i n g thereof? 2. D o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t support t h e conclusions of l a w and order of t h e c o u r t modifying t h e custody provision of t h e o r i g i n a l decree of d i s s o l u t i o n ? The f a c t s involved h e r e i n do n o t p r e s e n t t h e ordinary s i t u a t i o n found i n c h i l d custody cases. Here, t h e "non- c u s t o d i a l " mother has had a c t u a l , physical custody of t h e daughter while t h e " c u s t o d i a l " f a t h e r was i n t h e Navy. Even a f t e r t h e f a t h e r received a hardship discharge from t h e Navy, o s t e n s i b l y t o c a r e f o r h i s daughter, t h e mother con- tinued t o have physical custody u n t i l t h e daughter was taken, without t h e mother's knowledge o r consent, t o Indiana by appellant. Section 40-4-219, MCA, is t h e s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y au- t h o r i t y f o r a c t i o n s t o modify custody awards. I t p r o h i b i t s such a c t i o n s f o r two years a f t e r e n t r y of a custody award "unless t h e c o u r t permits it 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 physical, mental, moral, o r emotional health." Section 40-4-219(1), MCA . Further, s e c t i o n 40-4-220, MCA, provides: "A p a r t y seeking a temporary custody o r d e r o r modification of a custody decree s h a l l submit, together with h i s moving papers, an a f f i d a v i t s e t t i n g f o r t h f a c t s supporting t h e requested order o r modification and s h a l l give notice, together with a copy of h i s a f f i d a v i t , t o o t h e r p a r t i e s t o t h e proceeding, who may f i l e opposing a f f i d a v i t s . The c o u r t s h a l l deny t h e motion unless it f i n d s t h a t adequate cause f o r hearing t h e motion i s established by t h e a f f i d a v i t s , i n which case it s h a l l set a d a t e f o r hearing on an order t o show cause why t h e requested order o r modification should not be granted. " I n t h i s case respondent f i l e d her p e t i t i o n f o r modification of custody within t h e prohibited two-year period. She a l s o f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t attempting t o show t h a t her a c t i o n f i t within t h e exception t o t h e two-year prohibition. Appellant argues t h a t the a f f i d a v i t was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o bring respondent's motion within t h e exception because t h e c o u r t made no finding t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s present environ- ment endangers s e r i o u s l y her physical, mental, moral, o r emotional health. Further, appellant contends t h a t t h e insufficiency of t h e a f f i d a v i t s deprived t h e c o u r t of j u r i s - d i c t i o n . Finally, appellant contends t h a t t h e temporary custody order was i n v a l i d because he d i d n o t receive n o t i c e o r have a chance t o f i l e an opposing a f f i d a v i t a s required by s e c t i o n 40-4-220, MCA. W e disagree. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court issued an order ex p a r t e s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of respondent's a f f i d a v i t , d i r e c t i n g appellant t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d t o her mother pending t h e f a t h e r ' s f i l i n g of a f f i d a v i t s opposing t h e p e t i t i o n and any subsequent hearings on t h e p e t i t i o n . This order was made because t h e d i s t r i c t judge found t h e r e was "good cause ap- pearing therefor." W e must assume t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court w a s cognizant of t h e s t a t u t o r y requirements which had t o be m e t before it could o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n . Because t h i s order was issued ex p a r t e , on t h e b a s i s of respondent's a f f i d a v i t which was s u f f i c i e n t t o bring t h e motion within t h e exception t o t h e two-year prohibition, w e hold t h a t t h e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear and modify t h e custody award. I n t h e f u t u r e , however, w e would suggest t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s be made c l e a r and d i r e c t by t h e c o u r t , ra- t h e r than r e q u i r i n g reference t o supporting a f f i d a v i t s . Montana s t a t u t e s concerning modification of custody a r e s p e c i f i c i n t h e i r requirements. "Counsel's f a i l u r e t o com- p l y s t r i c t l y with these s t a t u t o r y r e q u i s i t e s , a s i n t h e i n s t a n t case, is i n v i t a t i o n t o erroneous r u l i n g s and d e t e r - minations p r e j u d i c i a l both t o t h e i r c l i e n t s ' r i g h t s and t o t h e system of j u s t i c e of which they are guardians." Lehman v. Billman (1978), Mont. , 584 P.2d 662, 666, 35 St.Rep. 1396. While t h e D i s t r i c t Court may have acted h a s t i l y i n granting temporary custody, respondent's a f f i d a - v i t was s u f f i c i e n t on i t s f a c e t o bring t h e motion within t h e exception t o t h e two-year p r o h i b i t i o n . Further, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d allow a p p e l l a n t ample time t o f i l e op- posing a f f i d a v i t s before it set t h e matter f o r hearing, and a p p e l l a n t w a s served with respondent's p e t i t i o n and a f f i - d a v i t as w e l l a s t h e o r d e r within s i x days of t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n . The temporary order by i t s very n a t u r e d i d n o t permanently a f f e c t t h e r i g h t s of e i t h e r of t h e p a r t i e s . F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t f a i l t o s u s t a i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court's conclusions of l a w and order modifying custody. The r e l e v a n t law regarding modification of custody de- crees i s set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 40-4-219(2), MCA. This sec- t i o n provides: " (2) The c o u r t s h a l l n o t modify a p r i o r custody decree unless it f i n d s , upon t h e b a s i s of f a c t s t h a t have a r i s e n s i n c e t h e p r i o r decree o r t h a t w e r e unknown t o t h e c o u r t a t t h e t i m e of e n t r y of t h e p r i o r decree, t h a t a change has occurred i n t h e circumstances of t h e c h i l d o r h i s cus- todian and t h a t t h e modification is necessary t o serve t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . I n applying t h e s e standards t h e c o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n t h e custodian appointed pursuant t o t h e p r i o r decree unless: " (a) t h e custodian agrees t o t h e modification; " (b) t h e c h i l d has been i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e family of t h e p e t i t i o n e r with consent of t h e custodian; o r " ( c ) t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment endangers s e r i o u s l y h i s physical, mental, moral, o r emo- t i o n a l h e a l t h and t h e harm l i k e l y t o be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by i t s advantages t o him." Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment and t h e a c t i o n s of t h e f a t h e r i n removing her from t h e only environment she had ever known s i n c e b i r t h s e r i o u s l y endangered her physical, mental, moral and emotional health. Such a finding i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o any c o u r t order changing custody under s e c t i o n 40-4-219(2)(c), MCA. G i a n o t t i v. McCracken (1977), Mont. , 569 P.2d The D i s t r i c t Court adhered t o t h e proper s t a t u t o r y standards as required, and w e f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. / J u s t i c e / W e concur: 'ir,4?$, P'4 Chief J u s t i c e .