Case Title: MARRIAGE OF MALCOLM

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-157

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 81-157 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1981 I N RE THE MARRIAGE O F PATRICIA LOUISE M A L C O L M , P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- C O R N E L HOWARD M A L C O L M , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Eighth 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 of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Stephen E. Hagerman, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Larsen & N e i l l , Great F a l l s , Montana t' . . Submitted on B r i e f s : November 12, 1981 Decided : E B 4 1982 FEB 4 - 1362 Filed: M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. O n J u l y 2 , 1980, P a t r i c i a Malcolm (mother) p e t i t i o n e d t h e Eighth ~ u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t f o r d i s s o l u t i o n of her marriage t o Cornel Malcolm ( f a t h e r ) . A temporary o r d e r was i s s u e d by t h a t c o u r t on September 4 , 1980, g r a n t i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , temporary custody of t h e couple's t h r e e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r mother. A decree d i s s o l v i n g t h e marriage was granted on January 27, 1981. Following f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , an order was issued on February 9, 1981, whereby t h e mother was granted permanent custody of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e f a t h e r was ordered t o pay one hundred d o l l a r s per c h i l d per month a s c h i l d support. The f a t h e r appeals t h i s custody order and claims t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by granting custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r mother. H e a s s e r t s t h a t permanent custody of t h e c h i l d r e n should n o t have been granted t h e mother f o r t h e following reasons: (1) She has l i v e d with another man while s t i l l married t o her husband. ( 2 ) She has "abused and neglected" t h e c h i l d r e n by locking them i n a c a r with a loaded gun. ( 3 ) She has been i n t r o u b l e with t h e p o l i c e . ( 4 ) She has l e f t t h e c h i l d r e n unattended on s e v e r a l occasions. Therefore, a s s e r t s t h e f a t h e r , it i s not 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 t o g r a n t permanent custody t o t h e i r mother. H e r e q u e s t s w e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t Court's order and g r a n t him custody of t h e children. This Court has long followed t h e r u l e t h a t unless t h e r e is a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court, t h e ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s custody decision w i l l n o t be overturned on appeal. he t r i a l judge i s i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o determine c h i l d custody a s he has heard t h e testimony and observed t h e demeanor of t h e witnesses. Allen v. Allen (1978), 175 Mont. 527, 575 P.2d 74; I n re Marriage of Tweeten (1977), 172 Mont. 404, 563 P.2d 1 1 4 1 ; I n r e t h e Marriage of I s l e r (1977), 173 Mont. 29, 566 P.2d 55. W e f i n d no c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n t h i s instance. Therefore, we a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order. The mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t she and her c h i l d r e n l i v e d with another man before she obtained a d i s s o l u t i o n of her marriage. She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were locked i n her c a r with a loaded gun i n c i d e n t t o her attempt t o regain custody of t h e c h i l d r e n from t h e i r f a t h e r . The gun was i n i t i a l l y pointed by t h e mother a t t h e f a t h e r and another man, a f t e r which it was placed i n t h e mother's purse and locked by her i n t h e c a r . The mother had a l s o locked her c h i l d r e n i n t h e c a r t o keep them from t h e i r f a t h e r . Although t h e c o u r t condoned n e i t h e r of t h e s e a c t i o n s on t h e p a r t of t h e mother, it held t h a t t h e s e i n s t a n c e s d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y prove t h a t she was " t o t a l l y u n f i t and incapable of being awarded custody of t h e children." W e agree. Evidence was presented which e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had a s s a u l t e d t h e mother on s e v e r a l occasions. She was a f r a i d of him. This evidence, coupled with t h e unusually emotional circumstances surrounding t h e use of t h e gun, leads us t o t h e conclusion t h a t t h e r e was no c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t regarding t h i s determination. The contacts t h e mother has had with t h e p o l i c e s t e m from t h e above described gun i n c i d e n t and a t r e s p a s s . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by f a i l i n g t o deny custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r mother a s a r e s u l t of t h e p o l i c e contact. F i n a l l y , evidence was presented a t t r i a l confirming t h a t t h e one t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n were l e f t alone a t n i g h t , a neighbor p e r i o d i c a l l y checked on them. W e do not condone leaving young c h i l d r e n alone a t n i g h t without a b a b y s i t t e r p r e s e n t i n t h e home. However, i n l i g h t of t h e t o t a l evidence presented a t t r i a l , we do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n on t h e b a s i s of t h a t s i n g l e i n c i d e n t . The b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d i s t h e primary f a c t o r t o be considered when determining custody of t h e c h i l d . Section 40-4-212, MCA, s t a t e s : "40-4-212. Best i n t e r e s t of c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l determine custody i n accordance with t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l consider a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s including: " ( 1 ) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d ' s parent o r p a r e n t s a s t o h i s custody; " ( 2 ) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d a s t o h i s custo- dian; " ( 3 ) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e c h i l d with h i s parent o r p a r e n t s , h i s sib- l i n g s , and any o t h e r person who may s i g n i f i c a n t - l y a f f e c t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t ; " ( 4 ) t h e c h i l d ' s adjustment t o h i s home, school, and community; and " ( 5 ) t h e mental and physical h e a l t h of a l l individuals involved." Factor number one is i r r e l e v a n t i n t h i s d i s p u t e a s both parents wish t o have custody of t h e i r children. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t found both parents t o be i n good h e a l t h and none of t h e c h i l d r e n t o have c u r r e n t r e l e v a n t physical o r mental h e a l t h problems. Therefore, f a c t o r number f i v e i s a l s o i r r e l e v a n t t o t h i s dispute. Evidence received a t t r i a l supports t h e D i s t r i c t Court's custody determination when it is applied t o f a c t o r s two, t h r e e and four. When interviewed by Family Court Services, both s i x year o l d Shawndel Malcolm and e i g h t year o l d Ray Shawn Malcolm expressed t h e d e s i r e t o r e s i d e with t h e i r mother. Although both c h i l d r e n s t a t e d they loved t h e i r f a t h e r and would l i k e t o s e e him o f t e n , they both expressed a f e a r of him. Three year o l d Sheronda Malcolm is too young t o express a preference. Reports from school teachers i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a r e well adjusted t o t h e i r p r e s e n t school s i t u a t i o n s . Neighbors of t h e Malcolms t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Malcolm c h i l d r e n a r e w e l l behaved and a r e very s u i t a b l e playmates f o r t h e i r own children. The c h i l d r e n seem t o be well adjusted t o t h e i r c u r r e n t home, school and community. Other testimony of neighbors and f r i e n d s of t h e Malcolms, a s w e l l a s Sheronda's day c a r e teacher, a t t e s t e d t o t h e f i n e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between P a t r i c i a Malcolm and her children. She was w i l l i n g t o change jobs when t h e new work hours a t her former job i n t e r f e r e d with t h e t i m e she had t o spend with her children. The c h i l d r e n were reported t o be c l e a n , n e a t and happy. Evidence was received i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e mother p a r t i c i p a t e d with her c h i l d r e n i n numerous a c t i v i t i e s such a s s k a t i n g , swimming and t r i p s t o t h e park. Evidence was a l s o received concerning t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of Cornel Malcolm with h i s children. Although he apparently d i d n o t spend a s much time i n t e r r e a c t i n g with h i s c h i l d r e n a s d i d t h e i r mother, t h e t i m e s together were enjoyable t o a l l p a r t i e s . H e was found by t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o be a f i t and loving f a t h e r . However, t h e f i n d i n g t h a t a p a r e n t is both f i t and capable does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean it would be 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 t o be p u t i n t h a t p a r e n t ' s custody. I n r e Marriage of Isler, supra; I n t h e Matter of -- - t h e Adoption of Redcrow (1977), 172 Mont. 366, 563 P.2d 1 1 2 1 . Other f a c t o r s supported by t h e evidence and considered by t h e D i s t r i c t Court pursuant t o s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, support t h e c o u r t ' s determination t h a t 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 would be served by granting permanent custody of them t o t h e i r mother. They a r e : "1) The f a t h e r f a i l e d t o pay support f o r t h e c h i l d r e n a s temporarily ordered by t h e c o u r t . " 2 ) The f a t h e r had t o be ordered by t h e c o u r t t o d e l i v e r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c l o t h i n g , f u r n i t u r e and household cooking u t e n s i l s t o t h e mother. " 3 ) The f a t h e r seldom v i s i t e d t h e c h i l d r e n following t h e separation of t h e husband and wife. " 4 ) The f a t h e r refused t o permit t h e mother t o have a m i l i t a r y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n card s o t h a t she could shop a t t h e base commissary and base exchange f o r food and c l o t h i n g f o r t h e children." Although t h e s e a c t s were apparently intended t o i r r i t a t e and inconvenience t h e mother, they a l s o adversely a f f e c t e d t h e children. They were properly considered by t h e t r i a l c o u r t and support t h e determination made. The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t " t h e preponderance of t h e evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s a good mother t o t h e c h i l d r e n , adequately c a r e s f o r them, loves them, wants t o be t h e custodian of t h e c h i l d r e n , and i s a b l e t o provide for t h e i r needs and t o provide a home f o r t h e m . ' V e f i n d ample evidence t o support t h i s f i n d i n g and t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e permanent custody order of t i s t r i c t Court. F We Concur: