Case Title: ADOPTION OF E S R

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-09-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 85-154 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 I N THE PATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF 3. S . R . , a m i n o r c h i l d . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T 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 , I n a n d for the C o u n t y of Y e l l o w s t o n e , T h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t H o l m s t r o m , 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 : H e r n d o n , H a r p e r & M u n r o ; J a m e s G. E d m i s t o n , R i , l i n g s , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : Moses Law F i r m ; S t e p h e n Moses a n d J a y F. L a n s i n g , B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J u n e 1 9 , 1985 D e c i d e d : S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 1985 F i l e d : SEP 2 4.11985 &/&&!&.--/ C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. S t e p f a t h e r a p p e a l s a judgment o f t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court which denied h i s p e t i t i o n f o r t h e adoption o f E.S.R. W e a f f i r m . The i s s u e s a r e : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n concluding t h a t mother and f a t h e r had e n t e r e d i n t o an o r a l agreement modifying f a t h e r ' s duty t o pay $125 p e r month f o r t h e support o f E.S.R. 2 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n concluding t h a t t h e o r a l modification agreement was a proper b a s i s f o r i t s con- c l u s i o n t h a t f a t h e r had supported E.S.R. d u r i n g t h e previous y e a r , s o h i s consent was necessary under § 40-8-111 (1) ( a ) , M C A ? Mother and f a t h e r w e r e divorced i n 1980. Mother was granted s o l e custody o f t h e two minor c h i l d r e n , a boy and a g i r l (E.S.R.). The f a t h e r ' s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n was set a t $125 p e r month p e r c h i l d . In January o r February o f 1982, t h e boy w e n t t o l i v e w i t h h i s f a t h e r f o r s i x months. During t h a t p e r i o d , t h e mother agreed t o suspend t h e b o y ' s c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n o f $125 p e r month. This agreement was l a t e r reduced t o an o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t . F a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t mother a7.so o r a l l y agreed t o suspend t h e g i r l ' s support o b l i g a t i o n because each p a r e n t was t o t a l l y supporting one c h i l d . The mother denied any such agreement. S t e p f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t o adopt E.S.R. and p l e d t h a t t h e consent o f t h e f a t h e r was excused under S 40-8-111(1) ( a ) ( v ) , MCA, by f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e support o f t h e c h i l d d u r i n g a period o f 1 y e a r b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n . The District Court found t h a t t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s had o r a l l y modified t h e c h i l d support agreement. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded t h a t t h e f a t h e r had supported E.S.R. by t o t a l l y supporting t h e boy and t h u s h i s consent was necessary under 40-8-111 (1) ( a ) , MCA. By s t a t u t e , a c h i l d cannot be adopted without t h e natu- r a l p a r e n t s 1 consent, s u b j e c t t o c e r t a i n exceptions. Section 40-8-111. (1) (a) (v) , MCA, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : (1) An adoption of a c h i l d may be de- c r e e d when t h e r e have been f i l e d w r i t t e n consents t o adoption executed by: ( a ) both p a r e n t s , i f l i v i n g . . . pro- vided t h a t consent i s n o t r e q u i r e d from a f a t h e r o r mother: (v) i f it i s proven t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r o r mother, i f a b l e , has n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support o f t h e c h i l d during a p e r i o d of 1 y e a r b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f a p e t i t i o n f o r adoption; . . . The p r i n c i p a l i s s u e i s whether f a t h e r has c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support o f E.S.R. In o r d e r f o r t h e s t e p f a t h e r t o pre- v a i l , he must have proved by c l e a r and convincing evidence t h a t f a t h e r "has n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support o f t h e c h i l d d u r i n g a period o f one y e a r p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i - t i o n and . . . [ f a t h e r ] had t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e . . ." See Matter of Adoption o f R.A.S. (Mont. 1984), 6 7 9 P.2d 220, Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n concluding t h a t mother and f a t h e r had e n t e r e d i n t o an o r a l agreement modifying f a t h e r ' s duty t o pay $125 p e r month f o r t h e support o f E.S.R.? The District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t 11 s t a t e s : The evidence regarding t h e agreement between t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s o f t h e minor c h i l d i s i n d i s p u t e ; a f t e r c o n s i d e r i n g t h e evidence and t h e demeanor o f t h e p a r t i e s w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g , t h e Court f i n d s t h a t t h e weight o f t h e evidence s u p p o r t s t h e testimony o f t h e f a t h e r t h a t such an agreement was made and t h e Court f i n d s t h a t such an agreement d i d e x i s t between t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s o f t h e minor c h i l d and t h a t t h e f a t h e r . . . i n r e l i a n c e upon s a i d agreement, d i d n o t make t h e c h i l d support payments s p e c i f i e d i n t h e decree o f d i s s o l u t i o n and had such an agreement n o t been i n e x i s t e n c e , he would have made t h e payments f o r t h e support o f t h e minor c h i l d a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e decree o f d i s s o l u t i o n . T h i s Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t Court u n l e s s t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e c l e a r l y erroneous. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : Findings o f f a c t s h a l l n o t b e set a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y erroneous, and due regard s h a l l be given t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e witnesses. Findings o f f a c t a r e n o t c l e a r l y erroneous i f supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence: T h i s C o u r t ' s function . . . i s n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n p l a c e o f t h e trier o f f a c t s b u t r a t h e r it i s "confined t o determining whether t h e r e i s substan- t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support" t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions o f law. Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t i n t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d , it i s t h e d u t y and f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e such c o n f l i c t s . H i s f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on appeal where t h e y a r e based on s u b s t a n t i a l though c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. I n re t h e Support o f Rockman (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , P.2d I 42 F a t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t mother never requested c h i l d support payments a f t e r she o r a l l y agreed t o suspend t h e g i r l ' s support o b l i g a t i o n . The record c o n t a i n s evidence t h a t f a t h e r was c u r r e n t i n h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n t i l t h e t i m e t h e agreement took p l a c e . Mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was never an o r a l agreement, she simply g o t t i r e d o f f i g h t i n g w i t h f a t h e r o v e r h i s duty t o support E.S.R. However, mother d i d t e s t i f y t h a t h e r a t t o r n e y had t o l d h e r t h a t i f f a t h e r f a i l e d t o make payments f o r one y e a r h i s consent would n o t be necessary i n t h e s t e p f a t h e r ' s adoption o f E.S.R. The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t mother's a t t o r n e y had knowl- edge o f f a t h e r ' s b e l i e f i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an o r a l agree- ment. I n October 1982, f a t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t mother's a t t o r n e y a letter i n response t o pending l i t i g a t i o n o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e l e t t e r made r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o r a l agreement modifying t h e c h i l d support o b l i g a t i o n . Mother t e s t i f i e d she never saw t h e letter. W e conclude t h e record c o n t a i n s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of an o r a l agreement modifying f a t h e r ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n o f E.S.R. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n concluding t h a t t h e o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n agreement was a proper b a s i s f o r i t s conclusion t h a t f a t h e r had supported E.S.R. d u r i n g t h e previous y e a r , s o h i s consent was necessary under S 40-8-111(1)(a), M C A ? Mother contends t h a t t h e o r a l modification agreement is an improper b a s i s f o r concluding t h e f a t h e r has supported E. S. R. because v e r b a l modification o f c h i l d support d e c r e e s is p r o h i b i t e d under S 40-4-208(2) ( b ) , MCA. That c o n t e n t i o n might be a p p r o p r i a t e i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court were c o n s i d e r i n g whether t h e agreement would be e n f o r c e a b l e i n an a c t i o n t o recover p a s t due c h i l d support payments. However, t h a t i s n o t t h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court. E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e i s s u e i s whether t h e f a t h e r has c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support o f E.S.R. so t h a t h i s consent was required p r i o r t o adoption. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusion o f law 2 s t a t e s : That . . . [ f a t h e r ] has c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support o f E.S.R. d u r i n g t h e period of one (1) y e a r b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Adoption and h i s consent t o t h e adoption is t h e r e f o r e necessary. In an accompanying memorandum, t h e District Court gave its r a t i o n a l e : It i s t h e C o u r t ' s view t h a t under t h e agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s , both p a r t i e s have continued t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e support of b o t h c h i l d r e n and t h e m e r e f a c t t h a t t h e y have c o n t r a c t e d w i t h one a n o t h e r t o assume a p o r t i o n o f each o t h e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n does n o t lessen t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y a r e c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e support o f each o f t h e c h i l d r e n . A s s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e standard o f review i s whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e c o u r t ' s conclusion. The record c o n t a i n s evidence t h a t t h e o r a l agreement provided each p a r e n t would t o t a l l y support one c h i l d . A l - though t h e f a t h e r d i d n o t a c t u a l l y g i v e t h e mother c h i l d support payments, h i s conduct o f t o t a l l y supporting one c h i l d was, by agreement, t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f f i n a n c i a l support f o r both c h i l d r e n . W e conclude t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t f a t h e r had supported E.S.R. d u r i n g t h e previous y e a r , s o f a t h e r ' s con- s e n t was necessary under § 40-8-111(1) ( a ) , MCA. W e a f f i r m . W e concur / Justices 1