Case Title: CUSTODY SUPPORT OF H Q T Q

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-530

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-530 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 I N RE THE CUSTODY AND SUPPORT OF H. Q. and T. Q. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of C a s c a d e , T h e H o n o r a b l e R. D. K c P h i l l i p s , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t & Weaver; K . D a l e S c h w a n k e , G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : Clary & C l a r y ; T h o m a s C l a r y , G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d o n briefs: A u g . 15, 1985 D e c i d e d : O c t o b e r 2 4 , 1 9 8 5 F i l e d : OCT 2419%' P P f a m C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e L.C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. The f a t h e r , a p p e l l a n t , a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, denying h i s r e q u e s t s f o r modification o f c h i l d custody and r e d u c t i o n o f c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n s . W e a f f i r m . The f a t h e r and mother ( a l s o r e f e r r e d t o a s respondent) joined i n a p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t and c h i l d custody agreement a t t h e t i m e t h e i r d i v o r c e decree was e n t e r e d w i t h o u t an adversary h e a r i n g on May 27, 1982. The agreement provided t h e p a r t i e s would have j o i n t custody o f H.Q. and T.Q., t h e i r minor c h i l d r e n , w i t h t h e mother t o have r e s i d e n t i a l custody. The c h i l d r e n would be with t h e i r f a t h e r one n i g h t each week, every o t h e r weekend, and two months each summer. The agreement contained p r o v i s i o n s about t h e r e q u i r e d n o t i c e p r i o r t o v i s i t s d u r i n g t h e week, t h e mother's v i s i t a t i o n d u r i n g t h e summer, h o l i d a y v i s i t a t i o n s , and an a l t e r n a t e plan i f e i t h e r p a r e n t should l e a v e Great F a l l s , Montana. The f a t h e r agreed, and was ordered, t o pay c h i l d support o f $200 p e r month p e r c h i l d u n t i l December 1982, a t which t i m e t h e support would i n c r e a s e t o $250 p e r month p e r c h i l d . The f a t h e r l o s t h i s job about November 1982 and decided t o e s t a b l i s h h i s own b u s i n e s s . H e contacted t h e mother t o arrange a d e f e r r a l o f c h i l d support and she agreed t o g i v e him some t i m e t o make t h e payments. However, t h e y never reached an agreement on t h e amount t o be d e f e r r e d o r t h e p e r i o d o f t i m e involved. I n March 1983, t h e mother l e v i e d on t h e f a t h e r ' s bank accounts f o r p a s t due amounts. H e responded by r e q u e s t i n g modification of h i s support o b l i g a t i o n and v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s . The f a t h e r continued t o be d e l i n q u e n t i n h i s support payments. I n June 1983, t h e mother i n i t i a t e d contempt proceedings and requested a t t o r n e y f s f e e s and t h e f a t h e r requested e x c l u s i v e custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n . Over t h e course o f h e a r i n g s i n August, September and October 1983, both t h e p a r t i e s and t h e i r w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d about t h e p a r e n t s f d i f f i c u l t i e s with each o t h e r . The f a t h e r contended t h a t t h e mother drank t o e x c e s s , neglected t h e c h i l d r e n , and p e r s i s t e n t l y v i o l a t e d t h e s p i r i t and i n t e n t o f t h e custody p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e i r agreement. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i n a d d i t i o n t o a reduction of income, h i s a b i l i t y t o pay c h i l d support had s u b s t a n t i a l l y changed because h e had t h r e e new dependents; a new w i f e , a son from an e a r l i e r marriage, and a new baby. The mother produced evidence t h a t he had more than adequate e a r n i n g s t o pay c h i l d support i n t h e f i r s t h a l f o f 1983 and t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was uncooperative, i n c o n s i d e r a t e and n o t prompt on v i s i t a t i o n schedules. Each p a r e n t t e s t i f i e d , and had t h e i r own w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f y , about s e v e r a l s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of t h e o t h e r p a r e n t ' s wrongdoing and about h i s o r h e r own good p a r e n t i n g s k i l l s . I n i t s o r d e r f i l e d June 1, 1984, t h e District Court found t h a t n e i t h e r p a r e n t was u n f i t although each attempted t o use t h e c h i l d r e n t o aggravate t h e o t h e r . The D i s t r i c t Court a l s o found t h a t t h e custody arrangement agreed on by t h e p a r e n t s remained adequate and i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e r e was no showing t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p r e s e n t environment endangered t h e i r physica 1, mora 1 , menta 1 o r emotional h e a l t h . The f a t h e r was found t o have s u f f i c i e n t income t o pay a l l p a s t c h i l d support and t o continue paying t h e agreed amount. The c o u r t concluded t h a t , under S 40-4-219, MCA, no modification o f t h e custody d e c r e e was a p p r o p r i a t e . The o r d e r s t a t e d t h a t a l l back support payments should be made w i t h i n t h i r t y days. The o r d e r r e q u i r e d s p e c i f i c behavior o f each p a r t y and s t a t e d t h e consequences f o r any f a i l u r e t o follow t h e order. The f a t h e r r a i s e s two i s s u e s on appeal: (1) Whether t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i s motion t o modify c h i l d custody? (2) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by denying h i s motion t o modify h i s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n ? T h i s Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e a determination o f c h i l d custody a b s e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Gilmore v. Gilmore (1975), 166 Mont. 47, 530 P.2d 480. S e c t i o n 40-4-219, MCA provides: (1) The c o u r t may i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n modify a p r i o r custody d e c r e e i f it f i n d s , upon t h e b a s i s o f 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 d e c r e e 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 o f e n t r y o f t h e p r i o r d e c r e e , t h a t a change has occurred i n t h e circumstances o f t h e c h i l d o r h i s custodian and t h a t t h e modification i s necessary t o s e r v e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d and i f it f u r t h e r f i n d s t h a t : fc) 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 p h y s i c a l , mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h and t h e harm l i k e l y t o be caused by a change o f environment i s outweighed by i t s advantages t o him; . . . In order to prevent recurring litigation, S 40-1-219, MCA "places a heavy burden on the person seeking to modify a prior custody decree." Groves v. Groves (1977), 173 Mont. 291, 298, 567 P.2d 459, 463. The District Court received evidence regarding conduct that occurred prior to the decree and on facts which arose after the initial decree. This included evidence on changes in the lives of both parents. The District Court listened to lengthy and conflicting testimony about the children's present environment. No abuse of discretion occurred when the District Court found no endangerment to the children in their present environment. Our review of the record shows substantial evidence to support the decision. The father also challenges the District Court's refusal to lower his child support obligation. Section 40-4-208, MCA, allows modification of support for installments due after the request "upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuinq as to make the terms unconscionable . . . " In Hughes v. Hughes (Mont. 1983), 666 P.2d 739, 741, 40 St.Rep. 1102, 1105, we reversed a district court's modification of child support and remanded for a determination of the continuing nature of the change in the father's circumstances. The father in Hughes requested a reduction of support payments on the grounds that his job had terminated, he was unemployed and consequently he had a reduction of income. He started his own business and anticipated that it would take three to six months to rebuild it. We stated that the reduction in income for this relatively short period of time was not so continuinq as to make the original agreement unconscionable. In the case at bar, the District Court found that despite the father's job loss he had sufficient current income to make the agreed payments. This is consistent with the statements in Hughes, that a temporary reduction of income is not a continuing change so as to make prior terms on support unconscionable. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to lower the father's child support obligation. Affirmed. R , ' , ; ' , * We concur: