Case Title: SHELHAMER v DIST COURT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-03-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12202 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 The S t a t e of Montana ex rel., ROBERT DUANE S H E L H A M E R , Relator, THE DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E FOURTEENTH i m a r c u L DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY OF MUSSELSHELL and T H E HON. N A T ALLEN, presiding judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For Relator : Robert L. Stephens, Jr. argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondents : Ask and Brower, Roundup, Montana. John L. Prate argued, Roundup, Montana. - --- Submitted : February 14, 1972 Decided: MAR 6 - 1972 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein r e l a t o r sought an appropriate w r i t t o r e q u i r e modification of an order enter- ed by t h e respondent c o u r t i n a contempt proceeding. From t h e record it appears t h a t i n a divorce proceeding e n t i t l e d P h y l l i s A , Shelhamer, P l a i n t i f f , v. Robert Duane Shel- hamer, Defendant, pending i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Musselshell County, wherein a decree of divorce was entered on October 7, 1968, t h e p l a i n t i f f executed an a f f i d a v i t i n re contempt. It was alleged t h e r e i n that t h e defendant had n o t paid c e r t a i n support money as required by t h e aforementioned decree, and prayed t h a t an order t o show cause be issued requiring t h e defendant to appear and show cause, if any he had, why he should not be held i n con- tempt of c o u r t , and a l s o pay p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s f o r t h e proceeding. The respondent c o u r t issued an order to show cause under d a t e of September 2 4 , 1971, requiring defendant to appear before it on October 8 , 1971. The hearing was continued to October 18, 1971, a t which t i m e t h e p a r t i e s appeared i n c o u r t and testimony was taken from each side as t o t h e delinquencies i n support payments and excuses f o r nonpayment thereof. Respondent c o u r t during t h e hearing expressed its d i s - s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e custody provisions contained i n t h e o r i g i n a l decree, found defendant g u i l t y of contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o support t h e children, fined him, and over t h e objections of h i s counsel d i r e c t e d a change be made i n t h e custody of t h e children. A formal order was t h e r e a f t e r entered on November 5 , 1971. It is conceded by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e i s s u e here is whether o r not t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n u n i l a t e r a l l y terminat- ing r e l a t o r ' s p a r t i a l custody r i g h t s granted by a p r i o r divorce decree a t a contempt hearing f o r nonsupport without request by the adverse p a r t y f o r t h e r e l i e f granted and without n o t i c e t o the r e l a t o r t h a t h i s r i g h t of p a r t i a l custody would be a t i s s u e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t has continuing j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c h i l d custody matters and has t h e continuing power t o modify orders and change custody, a l l a s provided i n s e c t i o n 21-138, R.C.M. 1947, which reads : "Orders respecting custody of children. I n an a c t i o n f o r divorce the c o u r t o r judge may, before o r a f t e r judgment, give such d i r e c t i o n f ~ r t h e custody, care, and education of t h e children of t h e marriage as may seem neces- sary o r proper, and may a t any t i m e vacate o r modify t h e same." A s w e s t a t e d i n Barbour v. Barbour, 134 Mont. 317, 324, "The e f f e c t of R.C.M. 1947, s e c t i o n 21-138, is t o make a l l c h i l d custody orders i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n nature, d i s c r e t i o n a r y with t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and conditioned by what t h e d i s t r i c t court i n its sound d i s c r e t i o n believes t o be f o r t h e well-being of t h e c h i l d concerned. * * *" This does not contemplate, however, t h a t due process should n o t be observed. Here w e have a show cause order f o r nonsupport, no request f o r a change of custody; nothing i n t h e pleadings t o i n d i c a t e a change i n custody was sought. The language used by t h e Supreme Court of Maine i n Remick v. Rollins, 1 4 1 M e . 65, 38 A.2d 883, 884, appears par- t i c u l a r l y appropriate: "There was no prayer i n t h e p e t i t i o n t o change any provision of t h e o r i g i n a l decree as t o custody and v i s i t a t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t t h e new decree makes an a l t e r a t i o n i n t h a t respect. Established p r a c t i c e gives p a r t i e s a r i g h t t o assume t h a t no change w i l l be made on an i s s u e which is n o t formally presented t o t h e Court by t h e p e t i t i o n o r pleadings." To t h e same e f f e c t is t h e statement contained i n S c o t t v. S c o t t , 174 Iowa 740, 156 N.W. 834, 836, wherein t h e Iowa c o u r t held: "The modification of t h e decree, by s t r i k i n g therefrom t h e provision r e b a t i n g t o t h e cus- tody of t h e c h i l d , was without authority. This order was entered a t t h e t e r m follow- i n g t h a t a t which t h e decree w a s entered, and therefore could n o t properly have been made on t h e c o u r t ' s own motion or without n o t i c e to t h e p l a i n t i f f . " I n Welch v. Welch, 256 Iowa 1020, 129 N.W.2d 642, 643, t h e Iowa c o u r t i n r u l i n g i n t h e same vein, stated: "Nothing i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r amendment t h e r e t o sets o u t any change of circumstances s i n c e t h e divorce decree was entered t h a t supports a change i n its custody provisions nor i n d i c a t e s a d e s i r e therefor. The i s s u e of custody was not raised. * * *" Respondent cites t h e case of Pearce v. Pearce, (1904) 30 Mont. 269, 76 P. 289, as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e proposition t h a t t h e c o u r t on its own motion may i n q u i r e i n t o t h e f a c t s respect- ing c h i l d custody and make an appropriate order. W e must bear i n mind t h a t i n Pearce both p a r t i e s were before t h e c o u r t and t h e i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e pleadings w a s t h a t a change of custody of t h e minor c h i l d should be made to t h e f a t h e r , and such prayer w a s granted and t h e ex-wife appealed. I n t h e course of its opinion t h i s Court stated: " * * * I f it makes a mistake i n t h e f i r s t instance, it may and should remedy t h e same, upon a proper showing, as soon t h e r e a f t e r as possible; and t h e l a w , i n its beneficence, and with a tender care f o r t h e i n f a n t s , has provided t h e means * * * .I1 (Emphasis ours.) I n Brice v. Brice (1915), 50 Mont. 388, 147 P. 164, t h i s Court, c i t i n g Pearce a s a u t h o r i t y , stated: " * * * Under s e c t i o n 3678 t h e c o u r t may, i n any case, before or a f t e r judgment, make such provision f o r t h e c h i l d as t h e circum- stances require; f o r though under t h e decree t h e husband may be relieved e n t i r e l y from any o b l i g a t i o n to provide f o r t h e w i f e , t h e c o u r t may nevertheless, under s e c t i o n 3678, upon proper a p p l i c a t i o n , make such order f o r t h e i r custody and maintenance as t h e circum- stances j u s t i f y . * * *" (Emphasis ours.) No such proper application had been made t o t h e c o u r t i n t h e cause here being considered. W e are n o t here dealing with complaints made t o t h e c o u r t with r e s p e c t t o lack of c a r e and maintenance by public a u t h o r i t i e s ; c e r t a i n l y i n such instances t h e c o u r t upon such showing may make any and a l l orders necessary and proper t o see t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s custody is temporarily placed where it can be cared f o r ; t h e r e a f t e r giving n o t i c e to t h e parents as pro- vided by l a w , and i f a permanent change i n custody appears to t h e c o u r t t o be necessary then due process requires t h a t an ap- p l i c a t i o n be made for t h a t purpose and proper notice of such application be given. W e hold that the court here erred i n changing the custody provisions i n the nonsupport contemptproceeding and that portion of the court's order o f November 5 , 1971, is an- nulled and held for naugh W e concur: n A , ' f * " . kudg6, .'sit<ihtj i ~ ' ~ l a c e of M r . Justice Wesley c a s t l e s .