Case Title: MARRIAGE OF CORBETT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-198

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-11-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-198 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF DENNIS P. CORBETT, Petitioner and Respondent, VS . SUSAN M . CORBETT, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Morales, Volinkaty & Harr, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Robert B . Allison, Kalispell, Montana Daley, Sherlock & Nardi, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on briefs: October 1, 1981 Decided: N OV 1 2 1981 Filed: BO\I ' ; I . -$ Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by Susan M. Corbett Adler, the mother of two children, from an order granting her ex- husband Dennis P. Corbett's motion for a modification of the divorce decree which changed the custody of two minor children from the mother to the father and denied her counterpetition for a modification seeking additional child support . The issues before this Court are: 1. Whether the District Court applied the correct standards in making its decision to grant respondent's petition for a change of custody? 2. Whether, even if the District Court applied the correct standards in making its decision to grant the respondent's request for a change of custody, there was sufficient evidence to support that decision? The parties to this action were married on October 26, 1968, at Ronan, Montana. Two children were born of the marriage--namely, James Patrick Corbett, born March 25, 1969, and Christine Marie Corbett, born April 17, 1972. The marriage was dissolved February 14, 1977, by the Honorable James M. Salansky, who is also the presiding judge in this modification proceeding. A property settlement agreement executed by the parties was incorporated in the decree of dissolution. In that agreement, and in the decree of dissolution, the mother was granted the care, custody and control of the two minor children with the father to have certain visitation rights. It should be noted that at the time the original ruling was made, the court had a report submitted by Tom B e s t , t h e d i r e c t o r o f f a m i l y c o u r t s e r v i c e s , on h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and recommendations. B e s t recommended Susan be awarded custody based upon t h e assumptions t h a t Dennis was n o t i n a p o s i t i o n a t t h a t time t o s e r v e a s a s i n g l e p a r e n t and t h a t Susan would move t o Nashua, Montana, where s h e would r e s i d e w i t h a b r o t h e r on h i s ranch and would have h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n a s we11 a s continuous employment on t h e ranch. B e s t , i n h i s r e p o r t , recommended t h a t temporary custody be p l a c e d i n Susan s o t h e c o u r t i n F l a t h e a d County could m a i n t a i n some c o n t r o l over t h e custody. One of t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n i n h i s testimony concerning t h e temporary custody a t t h e t i m e of t h e o r i g i n a l d i v o r c e was t h a t Susan had been s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d i n an automobile a c c i d e n t i n 1969 and s i n c e t h a t time had s u f f e r e d a p a r t i a l d i s a b i l i t y due t o t r a u m a t i c b r a i n damage and had been s u b j e c t t o p e r i o d i c e p i l e p t i c s e i z u r e s . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s Susan r e s i d e d o n l y b r i e f l y w i t h her b r o t h e r i n Nashua. She t h e n r e t u r n e d w i t h her c h i l d r e n t o her home community of Charlo, Montana, where s h e was r e s i d i n g a t t h e time of t h e h e a r i n g . The c o u r t noted i n its f i n d i n g s of f a c t t h a t o r d i - nar i l y evidence of e v e n t s and s i t u a t i o n s e x i s t i n g p r i o r t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n were i n a d m i s s i b l e . I n view of t h e above f a c t o r s , however, t h e c o u r t determined t h e background would demonstrate t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e o r i g i n a l c u s t o d y arrangement and deemed it r e l e v a n t t o t h e proceedings on custody modifi- c a t i o n . The evidence i n d i c a t e s Susan f r e q u e n t l y l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n a t home unattended d u r i n g t h e y e a r s s h e had c u s t o d y of them. I n a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l times when t h e c h i l d r e n were w i t h her Susan had some t y p e of s e i z u r e and e i t h e r had an automobile a c c i d e n t o r was prevented from having one by t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e c a r . There a l s o was testimony, a l t h o u g h c o n t r o v e r t e d , t h a t Susan had a problem of a l c o h o l abuse t h a t r e q u i r e d t r e a t m e n t which s h e had e i t h e r r e f u s e d or had n o t o b t a i n e d . She admitted t h a t on a number of o c c a s i o n s s h e l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n unattended while s h e went t o t h e b a r s t o d r i n k . Susan d i d submit t o an e v a l u a t i o n by t h e Comprehen- s i v e A l c o h o l i c Program i n Ronan d u r i n g t h e s e proceedings. She admitted having d r i n k i n g e p i s o d e s b u t denied s h e had an a l c o h o l problem o r was s u f f e r i n g any i l l n e s s from a l c o h o l abuse. During t h e summer of 1980, t h e c h i l d r e n were w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r , Dennis, and h i s new w i f e . They r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r mother i n Charlo on approximately August 4 t o g e t ready t o go t o school according t o t h e p a r t i e s ' p r e d i s s o l u - t i o n agreement. A f t e r having t h e c h i l d r e n and o b s e r v i n g them d u r i n g t h e summer v a c a t i o n , D e n n i s and h i s w i f e determined it was n e c e s s a r y t o r e q u e s t a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e and t o o b t a i n custody of t h e two c h i l d r e n . The f i r s t h e a r i n g was h e l d on August 29, 1980. Susan appeared p r o s e . Also p r e s e n t was an a t t o r n e y who had been appointed by t h e c o u r t t o appear f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . Testimony was p r e s e n t e d i n d i c a t i n g t h e n a t u r e of S u s a n ' s problems i n c l u d i n g t h e e p i l e p t i c s e i z u r e s and t h e f a c t t h a t money had been s e n t t o t h e c h i l d r e n by v a r i o u s members of t h e i r f a t h e r ' s f a m i l y b u t which t h e y n e v e r r e c e i v e d . S u s a n admitted s h e had used t h e money f o r o t h e r purposes. One check s e n t by a r e l a t i v e had been cashed a t a t a v e r n i n Charlo. Susan introduced evidence t h a t because t h e r e was no bank i n C h a r l o , t h e bar was one of t h e few p l a c e s where a check could be cashed. A t t h e h e a r i n g , r e b u t t a l testimony was p r e s e n t e d concerning s e v e r a l c a l l s made t o Dennis and h i s w i f e , Linda, by David Adler, a f r i e n d of Susan, l a t e i n June 1980. During t h e s e t e l e p h o n e c a l l s Adler t o l d Dennis and Linda t h a t Susan was an a l c o h o l i c , an u n f i t mother, l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n unattended, b e a t them w i t h a b e l t , and t h a t he a l s o was an a l c o h o l i c . He o f f e r e d t o a s s i s t Dennis w i t h l e g a l f e e s t o g e t t h e c h i l d r e n away from Susan. Based on testimony a t t h e h e a r i n g on August 29, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d temporary custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o Dennis, r e q u e s t e d t h a t Susan be e v a l u a t e d , and scheduled a f u l l h e a r i n g on October 2, 1980. Counsel f o r Susan appeared on her b e h a l f on September 11, 1980, and f i l e d a motion f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n and a c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n . A t t h e October 2 h e a r i n g a number of a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s e s were c a l l e d by both p a r t i e s . Thomas B e s t , t h e d i r e c t o r of f a m i l y c o u r t s e r v i c e s , e x p l a i n e d t o t h e c o u r t why h e had made h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a t t h e t i m e o f d i s s o l u t i o n . He i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n h i s o p i n i o n , "school is t h e b e s t window of how t h e c h i l d r e n a r e performing" i n any g i v e n f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n . T h e r e was t e s t i m o n y by t h e p r i n c i p a l of t h e Charlo s c h o o l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t w h i l e both of t h e C o r b e t t c h i l d r e n were b r i g h t and had good s c h o o l r e c o r d s , t h e i r g r a d e s had d e t e r i o r a t e d d u r i n g t h e l a s t s c h o o l y e a r . David Adler, who had married Susan on J u l y 15, 1980, t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had been drunk when he made t h e June t e l e p h o n e c a l l s t o Dennis a c c u s i n g Susan of being u n f i t and an a l c o h o l i c . H e s t a t e d t h a t he had made t h e c a l l s because he had q u a r r e l e d w i t h Susan and he was using t h e c h i l d r e n a s a pawn a g a i n s t t h e mother. A t t h e October 2 h e a r i n g he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t f e e l Susan was a poor mother or an a l c o h o l i c , and he disavowed t h e t h i n g s he s a i d about her d u r i n g t h e t e l e p h o n e c a l l s . Both i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r review w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d a s one i n our d i s c u s s i o n upholding t h e a c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. S e c t i o n 40-4-219, MCA, sets f o r t h t h e s t a n d a r d s and g u i d e l i n e s i n c o n s i d e r i n g a motion t o modify custody. Three s u b s e c t i o n s d e f i n e when a change of c u s t o d y c a n b e g r a n t e d : ( a ) t h e c u s t o d i a n a g r e e s t o t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n ; ( b ) t h e c h i l d h a s been i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e f a m i l y of t h e p e t i t i o n e r w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of t h e c u s t o d i a n ; o r ( c ) 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, or emotional h e a l t h , and harm l i k e l y t o be caused by a change of environment is outweighed by t h e advantages t o him. S u b s e c t i o n ( a ) is n o t a t i s s u e h e r e because t h e r e is no agreement f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n . Nor is s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) a t i s s u e h e r e . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h e judge m i s t a k e n l y took t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were with t h e i r f a t h e r f o r t h e summer v i s i t a t i o n and l a t e r f o r approximately a month under t h e c o u r t ' s temporary custody t o c o n s t i t u t e an i n t e r g r a t i o n i n t o t h e f a t h e r ' s home w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of t h e c u s t o d i a n . T h a t is n o t what t h e d i s t r i c t judge found. Nothing i n h i s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law a p p l y s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) i n t h i s m a t t e r . T h i s Court h a s p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d i n Weber v. Weber ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 144, 576 P.2d 1102, t h a t summer v i s i t a t i o n d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t ' s family. What t h e D i s t r i c t Court a c t u a l l y found h e r e was t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had adapted w e l l t o t h e i r f a t h e r ' s home. T h i s l e a v e s u s w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of s u b s e c t i o n ( c ) i n changing t h e custody. T h a t s u b s e c t i o n , a s noted above, r e q u i r e s t h e c o u r t t o f i n d upon t h e b a s i s of f a c t s t h e r e has been a change of c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h e o r i g i n a l c u s t o d y d e c r e e and t h a t t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n is n e c e s s a r y i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n . The s t a t u t e a l s o r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e c o u r t f i n d t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t e n v i r o n m e n t s e r i o u s l y e n d a n g e r s h i s p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l , moral or emotional h e a l t h and t h a t t h e harm l i k e l y t o be caused by t h e change of environment is outweighed by t h e advantages t o t h e c h i l d making t h e change. Here, t h e c o u r t found t h e r e was a change of circumstances; t h e c o u r t found an endangerment; t h e c o u r t found t h e harm l i k e l y t o be caused by t h e change was outweighed by t h e advantages t o t h e c h i l d r e n and such change was i n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s . The c o u r t a p p l i e d t h e c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d s i n making its d e c i s i o n , and w e c a n f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . T h i s C o u r t h a s s a i d many t i m e s r e g a r d i n g t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e District Court i n c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e s t h a t : " I n reviewing o r d e r s which a f f e c t t h e custody of t h e c h i l d , t h i s Court is mindful t h a t t h e primary d u t y o f d e c i d i n g t h e proper custody of c h i l d r e n is a t a s k of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. T h u s , a l l r e a s o n a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n s a s t o c o r r e c t n e s s of t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l be made. No r u l i n g w i l l be d i s t u r b e d a b s e n t a c l e a r showing t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n was a b u s e d . " F o s s v . L e i f e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 97, 550 P.2d 1309, 1311. Here t h e c o u r t made e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s t h a t a r e c l e a r l y supported by t h e evidence, and we f i n d no abuse of discretion. The decision of the District Court is affirmed. We concur: ?A& X j & M U z Q Q A h i e f Justice