Case Title: ESTELL v ESTELL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 12968 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1975 M E R L E L L O Y D ESTELL, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - SHIRLEY ESTELL , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana Robert Do Morrison argued, Havre, Montana For Respondent: George Rouff argued, Havre, Montana Submitted: June 12, 1975 Decided : .)U!q 2 W975 ]I->\? 'J g;:, Filed : M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the d i s t r i c t court, H i l l County, modifying a divorce decree by changing custody of two minor children from t h e i r paternal grandmother t o t h e i r mother. The o r i g i n a l decree dated July 1, 1974, placed the children with t h e grandmother, s t a t i n g : "* * * n e i t h e r p l a i n t i f f o r defendant a t t h i s time a r e a b l e t o provide the proper care and a t t e n t i o n required by said children and it is t o the best i n t e r e s t of said children t h a t they be awarded t o the care and custody and control of p l a i n t i f f [ t h e i r f a t h e r ] under t h e supervision and care of t h e i r grandmother, Mildred Estell, who resides i n Havre, H i l l County, Montana; t h a t t h e said Mildred E s t e l l i s a f i t and proper person t o provide t h e proper care and custody of said minor children u n t i l such t i m e a s e i t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f o r t h e defendant can give t h e children a home and I1 supervision. [Bracketed material supplied.] The two children, aged seven and eight years a t t h e time of the modification order, have been i n the a c t u a l custody of t h e i r grandmother since a t l e a s t Elarch 1973. The mother's p e t i t i o n f o r modification of the divorce decree alleged changed conditions and circumstances warranting t r a n s f e r of custody t o her. The d i s t r i c t court, followings hearing a t which both the f a t h e r and mother presented evidence, granted the modification. The court found the condition of the mother had changed so t h a t she was then able t o provide an adequate home f o r the children and t h a t i t was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of the children t o place them i n t h a t home. The f a t h e r appeals from t h e arder of modification claiming there has been no material change i n circumstances and t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t judge abused h i s discretion i n granting the mother's motion. The legal c r i t e r i a f o r modification of a custody decree have been frequently expressed by t h i s Court. Recently, i n Gilmore v. Gilmore, Mont . , 530 P.2d 480, 482, 32 St.Rep. 23, 25, t h i s Court said: "* * * There must be a change of circumstances o r conditions from the circumstances t h a t existed a t the time of t h e o r i g i n a l decree and upon which the decree was based under section 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947, which provides t h a t i n awarding the custody of minor children the court is t o be guided: "'BY what appears t o be f o r the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d i n respect t o its temporal and its mental and moral welfare * * *.' f I The claimed change i n conditions o r circumstances can be judged on no l e s s e r standard." Consideration of t h e evidence t o be measured against t h i s standard is a l s o influenced by well-established rules of appellate review, typified by the language of Jewett v. Jewett, 73 Mont. 591, 595, 237 P. 702, quoted with approval i n McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont. 419, 424, 498 P.2d 1189: "'When a controversy a r i s e s between parents over the r i g h t t o the custody of children, the duty of deciding it is a d e l i c a t e one, which is lodged with the d i s t r i c t court o r t h e judge thereof. The judge hearing o r a l testimony, i n such a controversy has a very superior advantage i n determining the same, and h i s decision ought not t o be disturbed except upon a c l e a r showing of abuse of discretion. 1 I t With these precepts and standards i n mind, w e turn t o the evidence contained i n the record here. A t t h e time of the divorce hearing, Shirley E s t e l l admittedly was suffering from a condition characterized a s manic-depressive. Treatment up t o t h a t time consisted primarily of heavy use of drugs and medications. Under the influence of her a f f l i c t i o n and these drugs, she was not capable of providing adequate care f o r the children, and t h e d i s t r i c t court so found. The court was equally unwilling t o place t h e children with t h e f a t h e r , but chose t o place them temporarily with the paternal grandmother i n Havre, Montana. A t the hearing on the petition f o r modification of t h e divorce decree, the d i s t r i c t court judge had ample opportunity t o observe the demeanor and capacities of Shirley E s t e l l a s she t e s t i f i e d . Based. on those observations, the testimony of t h e other witnesses, and the deposition of apsychtatrist who had t r e a t e d Shirley Estell for over a year and a half, the district court found that she was now able to provide proper care and attention for the children. The record supports that conclusion. Her psychiatrist indicated she had regained normal function through a regimen of supportive psychotherapy and supplemental lithium carbonate. That evidence is uncontroverted, ~ppellant's main contention is that she is not "cured" and might suffer a relapse to her former condition. While that eventuality is not beyond the realm of possibility, it is equally apparent that her condition is being effectively controlled and the probability of relapse is not great. The district court's order included a requirement that the mother, during the ensuing year, must provide the court with progress or status reports from her psychiatrist on a quarterly basis. Our review of the entire record discloses no evidence that the district judge abused his discretion. To the contrary, it is clear that Judge Thomas acted in accord with the law and the evidence in granting custody to the mother, The order of the district court is affirmed. -- sit- Justice w- 2eq- -E Justices,