Case Title: MARRIAGE OF PIERCE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-05-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 81-156 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1981 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF P E G G Y ANN PIERCE, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- JAMES RAY PIERCE, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t 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 County o f L e w i s & Clark, The Honorable P e t e r G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gregory A. Jackson, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Leo J. Gallagher, Helena, Montana Joan Uda, Helena, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : October 30, 1981 Decided: May 201 1982 F i l e d : MAY 2 0 1 9 8 2 ' M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . James Ray P i e r c e a p p e a l s t h e judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District, County o f Lewis and C l a r k , S t - a t e o f Montana, d i s s o l v i n g t h e m a r r i a g e of t h e a p p e l l a n t . , e s t a b l i s h i n g c h i l d c u s t o d y and c h i l d s u p p o r t and awarding maintenance f o r two c h i l d r e n . T h i s C o u r t on December 8, 1981, a f t . e r examining t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l , n o t e d t h a t t h e a p p e a l was p r e m a t u r e under Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.K.Civ.P., and ret-urned t h e case t o t h e D i s - t.rict C o u r t pending f i n a l judgment. P u r s u a n t to o u r o r d e r , t h e Dist-rict Court made a Rule 5 4 ( b ) c e r t i f i c a t i o n o n December 23, 1981, and r e t u r n e d t h e c a s e to t h i s C o u r t f o r f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n on a p p e a l . The a p p e l l a n t sets f o r t h i n h i s b r i e f two i s s u e s f o r c o n s i d e r a t - i o n by t h i s C o u r t . W e f e e l t h e p r o p e r i s s u e is a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h o s e posed by a p p e l l a n t and can be sum- marized as whether a s t e p f a t h e r o r former s t e p f a t h e r , who h a s no b i o l o g i c a l r e l a t - i o n s h i p to a minor c h i l d and who h a s not l e g a l l y adopted t h e c h i l d under t h e p r o c e e d i n g s e s t a b - l i s h e d i n Montana's Uniform Adoption Act or any comparable p r o c e d u r e s , h a s any s t a n d i n g t o c o n t e s t t h e c u s t o d y of a c h i l d i n d i s p u t e w i t h t h e c h i l d ' s b i o l o g i c a l mother. R e s p o n d e n t , t h e m o t h e r , g a v e b i r t h t o a c h i l d , C h r i s t o p h e r Wade T i c h n o r , on June 26, 1977. A t t h e t i m e o f C h r i s t o p h e r ' s b i r t h , t h e r e s p o n d e n t w a s unmarried. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e knew t h e name o f t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r , b u t t h a t it was n o t p u t on t h e b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e , which w a s l e f t b l a n k . She t e s t i f i e d f u r t h e r t h a t s h e t o l d t h e d o c t o r t o l e a v e t h e bottom o f t h e b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e b l a n k s o t h a t . , "when I want C h r i s t o p h e r to be adopt-ed, t h e n i n s t e a d of going through any -- , t h a t w e l u s t y e t t h i s paper and have it signed and n o t a r i z e d . " Between f o u r and s i x months a f t e r C h r i s t o p h e r was b o r n , t h e r e s p o n d e n t and t h e a p p e l l a n t , who had b e e n a c q u a i n t e d f o r some time, began d a t i n g and soon contemplated marrying. They were married on February 20, 1978, a t which t i m e C h r i s t o p h e r was about e i g h t months o l d . Both p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t b e f o r e t h e i r m a r r i a g e t h e y d i s c u s s e d what r e l a t i o n s h i p t h e c h i l d would have to t h e a p p e l l a n t , James Ray P i e r c e . They both t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y agreed and Intended a t t h a t time t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of p a r e n t and c h i l d would be e s t a b l i s h e d between a p p e l l a n t and t h e c h i l d , u l t i m a t e l y through a d o p t i o n , t h a t t h e c h i l d would b e a r t h e P i e r c e name from and a f t e r t h e t i m e of t h e m a r r i a g e of t h e p a r t i e s , and t h a t , i n t u r n , t h e a p p e l l a n t would assume t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of a f a t h e r of t h e c h i l d . Following t h e m a r r i a g e of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e c h i l d l i v e d w i t h and was supported by both p a r t i e s . A p p e l l a n t assumed t h e r o l e of a f a t h e r d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d of t i m e . During t h e m a r r i a g e t h e p a r t i e s a l s o d i s c u s s e d consummating a formal a d o p t i o n of t h e c h i l d by t h e a p p e l l a n t . They t e s t i f i e d t h a t because of t h e i r l i m i t e d f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s t h e y sought t o accomplish t h e a d o p t i o n by t h e most expedi- t i o u s , inex p e n s i v e means. A p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e c o n t a c t e d an a t t o r n e y a t t h e Montana S t a t e Highway Depart- ment, where he worked. A p p e l l a n t t o l d t h e a t t o r n e y t h a t h e was 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 and asked how he could g e t h i s name placed on t h e b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e a s t h e f a t h e r . A s a r e s u l t of a d v i c e g i v e n a p p e l l a n t by t h i s a t t o r n e y , b o t h p a r t i e s executed an a f f i d a v i t s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was 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 . T h i s a f f i d a v i t was nota- r i z e d and executed by both p a r t i e s w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c i n t e n - t i o n t h a t it w a s accomplishing an "economic a d o p t i o n . " For unknown r e a s o n s , t h e a f f i d a v i t w a s never f i l e d w i t h t h e Bureau o f V i t a l S t a t i s t i c s . The p a r t i e s n e v e r began a formal a d o p t i o n under t h e procedure set f o r t h i n Montana's Uniform Adoption A c t , and on J a n u a r y 21, 1981, t h e m a r r i a g e o f t h e p a r t i e s was d i s - s o l v e d . Thus, a t t h a t time, n o t even t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of a s t e p p a r e n t - s t e p c h i l d e x i s t e d b e t w e e n t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d C h r i s t o p h e r Wade. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t unimpeached testimony i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e t r i a l t h a t an o r a l v a l i d con- t r a c t to adopt e x i s t e d which was e n f o r c e d and f u l l y e x e c u t e d by both p a r t i e s t h e r e b y c r e a t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of c h i l d and p a r e n t between a p p e l l a n t and C h r i s t o p h e r Wade P i e r c e . A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t such c o n t r a c t should be e n f o r c e d by t h e c o u r t , or, i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t t h e c o u r t should f i n d t h a t an e q u i t a b l e a d o p t i o n e x i s t e d . A p p e l l a n t c i t e s and r e l i e s on as a u t h o r i t y a Montana c a s e , I n Re C l a r k ' s Estate ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 1 0 5 Mont. 401, 74 P.2d 401, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e can b e a v a l l d e q u i t a b l e a d o p t i o n or enforcement of a c o n t r a c t to a d o p t i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana. H e b a s e s h i s e n t i r e case on t h e " c o n t r a c t t o adopt" as a t y p e of e q u i t a b l e a d o p t i o n , or an a d o p t i o n by e s t o p p e l . A s w i l l be noted f u r t h e r , however, t h e law o f Montana and o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s is c l e a r t h a t such t h e o r i e s have no a p p l i c a t i o n t o a p r o c e e d i n g , such as t h i s , where a s t e p f a t h e r is s e e k i n g t o e s t a b l i s h c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s i n h i s former s t e p c h i l d a g a i n s t t h e w i s h e s o f t h e c h i l d ' s mother. I n He C l a r k ' s E s t a t e , s u p r a , c l e a r l y d o e s n o t s u p p o r t a p p e l l a n t ' s c a s e . There, t h e " c h i l d " i n q u e s t i o n claimed an a d o p t i o n i n an e f f o r t t o c u t down t h e i n h e r i t a n c e t a x by t h e S t a t e of Montana. The s t e p c h i l d argued t h a t s i n c e an "equi- t a b l e a d o p t i o n " had t a k e n p l a c e , he should be t r e a t e d as a c h i l d of t h e d e c e d e n t f o r estate t a x p u r p o s e s , t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g t h e estate t a x l i a b i l i t y . T h i s C o u r t , i n d i s p o s i n g of t h a t argument, h e l d t h a t a l t h o u g h Montana does r e c o g n i z e t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e a d o p t i o n i n e s t a t e c a s e s , t h e g r a n t of r e l i e f i n e q u i t y does n o t u n d e r t a k e to change t h e l e g a l s t a t u s of t h e s t e p c h i l d from a c o n t r a c t c l a i m a n t to an " h e i r " of t h e d e c e d e n t . T h e r e f o r e , s i n c e t h e c h i l d had n o t l e g a l l y been adopted, he was n o t e n t i t l e d to t h e s t a t e in- h e r i t a n c e t a x exemption a f forded t h e c h i l d of t h e d e c e a s e d . The a p p e l l a n t a l s o c i t e s and relies on a number o f o t h e r cases o u t s i d e t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n . Young v. Young (Tex. 1 9 7 6 ) , 545 S.W.2d 551; S a r g e a n t v. S a r g e a n t ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 88 Nev. 223, 495 P.2d 618; I n t h e M a t t e r of t h e E s t a t e of Lamfrom ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 90 A r i z . 363, 368 P.2d 318; I n Re G r a c e ' s Estate ( 1 9 4 9 ) , 88. Cal.App.2d 956, 200 P.2d 189; Chavez v. Shea ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 185 Colo. 400, 525 P.2d 1148; Bower v. Landa ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 78 Nev. 246, 371 P.2d 657; J o n e s v. Loving (Okla. 1 9 6 1 ) , 363 P.2d 512; I n t h e M a t t e r of t h e E s t a t e s o f Williams ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 10 Utah2d 83, 348 P.2d 683. A l l of t h e s e cases t a l k a b o u t e q u i t a b l e a d o p t i o n f o r i n t e s t a c y p u r p o s e s o n l y and d o n o t i n v o l v e t r u e c u s t o d y c a s e s . A p p e l l a n t a s s e r t s t h a t i n r e c e n t y e a r s c o u r t s have recognized e q u i t a b l e a d o p t i o n o u t s i d e of i n t e s t a c y or o t h e r d e a t h - r e l a t e d s i t u a t i o n s and c i t e s S a r g e a n t v. S a r g e a n t , s u p r a , a s a u t h o r i t a t i v e . I n examining t h e S a r g e a n t case, w e n o t e t h a t f a c t . u a l l y it h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n h e r e . There, t h e c h i l d involved w a s n o t t h e b i o l o g i c a l o r n a t u r a l c h i l d o f e i t h e r o f t h e p a r t i e s . The c h i l d came i n t o t h e i r c a r e when he w a s f o u r , and t h e m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d when t h e c h i l d was f i f t e e n . W e n o t e t h a t b o t h i n S a r g e a n t and i n Young v. Young, s u p r a , d i v o r c i n g women were s e e k i n g c h i l d s u p p o r t from husbands who were n o t t h e b i o l o g i c a l f a t h e r s of t h e c h i l d r e n f o r whom s u p p o r t w a s sought. I n both c a s e s , t.he c o u r t d e n i e d s u p p o r t . N o c a s e s have been found, n o r were any c i t e d , which awarded support. under t h o s e circumst.ances. I n Montana t h e law is c l e a r t h a t f o r an a d o p t i o n t o o c c u r , t h e a d o p t i v e p a r e n t or p a r e n t s must f o l l o w t h e re- q u i r e d p r o c e d u r e s provided i n Mont-ana ' s Uniform Adopt-ion Act, T i t l e 40, C h a p t e r 8, Montana Code Annotated. T h i s was set. clear by a r e c e n t o p i n i o n o f t h i s C o u r t , M a t t e r o f G u a r d i a n s h i p of Aschenbrenner ( 1979 ) , - Mont . - , 597 P.2d 1156, 36 St.Rep. 1282, wherein t.his Court, i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t - s o r c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s of t h e p a r e n t s , set f0rt.h t h e c o r r e c t . p r o c e d u r e t-o be followed. Aschenbrenner involved a p e t - i t i o n f o r g u a r d i a n s h i p f i l e d by g r a n d p a r e n t s , i n t h e c o n t e s t of which t h e D i s t r i c t Court t e r m i n a t e d a mot.her1 s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s by f i n d i n g h e r u n f i t and t h e c h i l d r e n dependent and neglect-ed. T h i s Court h e l d : "The c o n f u s i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . 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 govern- ing t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o r t h e c u s t o d y o f c h i l d r e n or b o t h . . . T i t l e 41, C h a p t e r 3, MCA ( a b u s e d , n e g l e c t e d and depen- d e n t y o u t h ) ; . . . T i t l e 40, Chapter 4, MCA (Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t ) ; . . . 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 a b u s e ) ; . . . T i t l e 40, C h a p t e r 8 , MCA [adoption s t a t u t e s ] ; . . . T i t l e 72, C h a p t e r 5, P a r t 2 ( G u a r d i a n s h i p of Minors) . " 597 P.2d a t 1164. I n t h a t o p i n i o n , w e p o i n t e d o u t t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of t h e s e f i v e d i s t i n c t p r o c e d u r e s o v e r l a p p e d t o some ext-ent, e a c h must be used f o r t h e purpose i n t e n d e d and t h e c o r r e c t and s p e c i f i c procedure must be " r i g o r o u s l y followed" i n o r d e r f o r a v a l i d judgment o r o r d e r to i s s u e . Ot.herwise, t h e c o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c t . i o n , and t.he judgment. or o r d e r is i n v a l i d . Henderson v. Henderson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 1, 9, 568 P.2d 177, 181; Matt-er o f t h e G u a r d i a n s h i p of Doney ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 282, 287, 570 P.2d 575, 578. T h i s l i n e of c a s e s makes it v e r y c l e a r t h a t t h e c o r - rect p r o c e d u r e s must. be followed and followed r i g o r o u s l y . There is good c a u s e f o r t h o s e p r o c e d u r e s . It is w e l l set- t l e d i n t.he law t h r o u g h o u t t h i s c o u n t r y , i n c l u d i n g Montana, t h a t t h e r i g h t of a p a r e n t t o c u s t o d y o f h i s c h i l d is a fundamental c o n s t . i t u t i o n a 1 r i g h t . Aschenbrenner, s u p r a . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c o u r t must s c r u t - i n i z e v e r y c l o s e l y any st.ate a c t i o n t h a t i n t e r f e r e s w i t h t h a t r i g h t . T h i s Court. made c l e a r t h a t a n o t h e r purpose f o r r e q u i r i n g t h e c o r r e c t proce- d u r e s t.o be r i g o r o u s l y followed is t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n 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 o f t h e l a w s d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t . them. See, In Re t h e G u a r d i a n s h i p o f Evans ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 438, 587 P.2d 372. I n t h i s c a s e we a r e asked to p e r m i t a former s t e p - father to g a i n c u s t o d y r i g h t s r e g a r d i n g h i s former s t e p s o n . No adopt Ion o c c u r r e d under Montana's Uniform Adoption A c t . N o p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n w a s e v e r f i l e d . I n f a c t , no formal s t e p s whatsoever were t a k e n t o e f f e c t u a t e an a d o p t i o n under o u r A c t . Thus, t h e o n l y way a p p e l l a n t could o b t a i n s t a n d i n g to r e q u e s t c u s t o d y o f t h i s minor c h i l d is i f t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e mother respondent were t e r m i n a t e d . Under Montana law it is c l e a r t h a t t h e o n l y way p a r e n t a l r i g h t s can be t e r m i n a t e d j u d i c i a l l y , a b s e n t c o n s e n t o f t h e b i o l o g i c a l parent-s, is under Montana's s t a t u t e s governing c h i l d abuse, neglect. or dependency, under s e c t i o n 41-3-401 e t seq., MCA. Henderson v. Henderson, s u p r a ; Guardianship of Doney, s u p r a . Our s t a t u t e s make it v e r y c l e a r t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y is t h e p e r s o n who must f i l e p e t i t i o n s a l l e g i n g abuse, n e g l e c t or dependency. See , s e c t i o n 41-3-401(1), MCA. Under t h e Henderson, Doney and Aschenbrenner t r i l o g y , t h a t is t h e o n l y way a nonparent c a n s e e k c u s t o d y o f someone e l s e ' s c h i l d . The attempted s h o r t c u t t i n g of a l l Montana s t a t u t o r y and c a s e law governing t h e l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s of p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n t o each o t h e r , by using a n " e x e c u t o r y c o n t r a c t a d o p t i o n " t h e o r y , c a n n o t be approved i n c u s t o d y c a s e s . One problem a r i s e s a s a r e s u l t of o u r holding which was n o t r a i s e d a s an i s s u e on a p p e a l . The p a r t i e s agreed i n A p r i l 1981, i n a s t i p u l a t i o n f o r i n t e r i m c u s t o d y and prop- e r t y d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t would have c e r t a i n v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s f o r both c h i l d r e n . I n a d d i t i o n , a p p e l l a n t agreed t o pay $75 a month i n support. money f o r each c h i l d from A p r i l 1981 unt.il t h e m a t t e r was s e t t l e d f u l l y and f i n a l l y by t h i s Court.. The r e s u l t o f t h e judgment. of t h e D i s t r i c t Court and o u r a f f i r m a n c e o f t h e same is t h e h o l d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t , from t h e day of d i v o r c e , h a s no s t a n d i n g whatsoever to contest. t h e c u s t o d y of C h r i s t o p h e r , n o r h a s he any o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h a t c h i l d . T h e r e f o r e , t h e judgment o f t-he D i s t r i c t . Court is a f f i r m e d e x c e p t f o r s u p p o r t money f o r C h r i s t o p h e r . These i s s u e s a r e remanded to t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n . J u s t ice W e concur: PLd-fJ? U L q Chief J u s t i c e