Case Title: APPLICATION OF CONLEY v WALDEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M O N T A N A I N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF MELVIN CONLEY and R U B Y F PERSHALL, P e t i t i o n e r s , f o r a W r i t o f Habeas Corpus t o I n q u i r e i n t o t h e Cause o f Detention of CHRISTINA M A E CONLEY (INNIS), E D G A R MELVIN CONLEY (INNIS) and DALE W A Y N E C O M L E Y (INNIS), P e t i t i o n e r s , -vs- LOIS INNIS WALDEN, Defendant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D Shanstrom, Judge P r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Kent R Douglass, Livingston, Montana. Harrison, Loendorf and Poston, Helena, Montana. James T Harrison, Jr argued, Helena, Montana. For Respondent: Joseph T Swindlehurst argued, Livingston, Montana. Submitted: March 6, 1975 Decided : APR - 7 1975 F i l e d : APR - 7 3 w d M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from an order of t h e d i s t r i c t court, Park County, denying a p e t i t i o n f o r the possession and custody of t h r e e minor children i n a habeas corpus proceeding. Petitioners Melvin Conley and Ruby F. Pershall a r e the n a t u r a l parents of Christina Mae, born July 3 , 1960; Edgar Melvin, born January 15, 1965; and Dale Wayne, born October 8, 1962. Respondent i s Lois Innis Walden the maternal stepgrandmother of the children and the widow of Jesse Innis, f a t h e r of Ruby F. Pershall, p e t i t i o n e r herein. Petitioners t e s t i f i e d they a r e members of a religious group headed by Alfred F. Pershall, the present husband of p e t i t i o n e r Ruby. The question of the a n t i q u i t y of the r e l i g i o n w a s raised a t the hearing and p e t i t i o n e r Melvin Conley t e s t i f i e d h i s grandfather had "started a l l things i n common way back". The group now makes i t s headquarters i n a t r a i l e r court i n Yuma, Arizona, and the male members a r e i n the masonry business together. Respondent Lois Innis Walden i s the s i s t e r of Alfred, Robert and Charley Pershall and the aunt of p e t i t i o n e r Melvin. From p e t i t i o n e r s ' testimony it appears t h a t a l l t h e male members of the group have exchanged wives during the l a s t eight years. A t the time of the hearing the family groupings were: a ) Alfred F. Pershall i s married t o p e t i t i o n e r Ruby, ex-wife of p e t i t i o n e r Melvin Conley . b) Charles Pershall i s married t o Donna, Alfred's ex-wife. c ) Robert Pershall is married t o Catherine, Charley's ex-wife. d) Petitioner Melvin Conley is married t o John Powell's (another group member) ex-wife J e s s i e . This marriage is the most recent within the group and took place i n August 1972. Sometime prior to 1966 petitioner Ruby, while still married to Melvin, began living with Alfred Pershall and became pregnant by him. Melvin testified: That he and Ruby were not getting along and he discussed the situation with his Uncle Alfred and as a result Ruby went to live with Alfred, That he, Melvin, obtained a divorce from Ruby on the grounds of incompatibility, not adultery, and he was given custody of their three children. Melvin then left California, where he had obtained the divorce, and went to Plattsburg, Missouri where his Uncle Robert lived. There he lived with Catherine Pershall, Charley's ex-wife and ~obert's present wife. He took the family to Kansas City where they moved in with in-laws. About this time, June 1967, respondent and her then husband Jesse Innis became concerned about the children's welfare and reported the situation to the Missouri welfare department, of Clinton County. That office had the children picked up in Kansas City and delivered into the custody of their grandparents, Jesse and Lois Innis. O n June 6, 1967, the circuit court of Clinton County, Missouri, issued an order granting temporary custody of the children to the county welfare department and that department placed the children in the care and custody of respondent and her husband, Jesse Innis. Petitioner Melvin Conley had notice of the hearing held by the court before it granted custody of the children to the welfare department of Clinton County and was actually present, though later in 1972, he told another judge in Missouri that he did not have notice, nor was he present. On or about that same time petitioner Melvin moved into the Innis home and lived there for about a year. He paid $30 a week for support of the children until February or 14arch 1968. The Innis' purchased a truck from Melvin with the understanding that the support payments would go to the payments on the truck. Petitioner Melvin did some work about the Innis farm and in the house. In June 1968, petitioner Melvin moved to Kansas City leaving the children at the 1nnis'. A month later he left Kansas City, removed t h e truck from the Innis garage during the night, and departed f o r destinations unknown. From t h a t date, u n t i l the middle of 1973, he made no attempt t o support the children o r v i s i t them, o r t o advise the I n n i s ' of h i s whereabouts. From the f a l l of 1967, p e t i t i o n e r Ruby Pershall, the children's "devoted mother" knew her children were wards of the Missouri court and were l i v i n g and being cared f o r by her f a t h e r and stepmother. From t h a t time t o t h e time of t h e habeas corpus hearing, she knew where her children were but made no serious attempt t o contact, correspond with, telephone, v i s i t , nor support her three children. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t l e t t e r s she sent were returned but respondent denied such l e t t e r s were received and t h a t t h a t she had nothing t o do with returning them, i f sent. Testimony given a t t h e hearing indicated t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s f a t h e r , Jesse Innis, did not approve of the r e l i g i o u s group and the alleged f a c t t h a t fornication and adultery were practiced by the group. Testimony given by Christina, the o l d e s t child, indicated t h e group practiced c r u e l and unusual punishments upon the children when they were of tender years. She t e s t i f i e d she was put i n a gunny sack, by e i t h e r Catherine o r Donna, and swung around; t h a t t h e children were put i n t o garbage p i t s a t night and t o l d there were snakes i n it. Other punishments consisted of putting a c h i l d ' s head under water f o r what seemed a long period; Christina t e s t i f i e d t h a t her mother, p e t i t i o n e r Ruby, did t h i s . Pc a i.h3,r-- Mfired Pershall t e s t i f i e d : That the name of the r e l i g i o u s group was he Church of t h e F i r s t ~ o r n " and it originated i n Amsterdam, Idaho, where t h e e l d e r brothern lived. That he went down t o Yuma t o see what kind of a minister h i s uncle Alfred was and t o find out more o r less what was going on, a t the urging of h i s mother and because of the Ifyapping" of h i s wife Catherine. That he went t o find out i f the charges of c h i l d abuse, fornication and adultery were true and being practiced by men claiming t o be ministers of the gospel. That he moved i n t o the group's t r a i l e r court and lived there f o r about s i x months, O n d i r e c t examination he t e s t i f i e d he found no c h i l d abuse, fornicationmr adultery among t h e members of the religious group l i v i n g a t the t r a i l e r court, y e t on cross-examination he admitted f i l i n g charges against h i s brothers on those various charges. H e wrote t o a brother i n Oregon t h a t i t was i n t e r e s t i n g t o get up e a r l y i n t h e morning "to see which chicken came out of which hen house". He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t those charges were dropped because he did not a c t u a l l y see anything t o substantiate the charges. In November 1971 Jesse Innis, t h e children's n a t u r a l grandfather, died i n Missouri. Some s i x months l a t e r respondent, t h e widow of Jesse Innis, moved t o Wilsall, Montana, where she now resides. Since coming t o Montana, she has remarried t o one Arthur Walden. Before moving t o Montana respondent received an order dated March 20, 1972, from the c i r c u i t court of Clinton County, juvenile division, giving her custody and granting her permission t o remove t h e children from Missouri t o Montana. O n May 15, 1972, t h a t same court entered i t s order granting respondent permission t o i n s t i t u t e adoption proceedings i n Montana f o r t h e three minor children. A p e t i t i o n f o r adoption was f i l e d by respondent i n Park County, Montana, June 6, 1972, and a decree of adoption was issued on June 27, 1972. The Park County d i s t r i c t court found t h a t p e t i t i o n e r s ' consent f o r t h e adoption was not necessary since the children were declared dependent and neglected children by t h e s t a t e of Missouri and t h a t Missouri had granted care, custody and control t o respondent. Three months l a t e r , on September 25, 1972, the c i r c u i t court of Clinton County, Missouri, juvenile division, entered an order s e t t i n g aside a s void, ab i n i t i o , a l l previous orders entered by it concerning t h e children f o r the reason t h a t notice-had not been given the parents, petitioners here. While respondent was n o t i f i e d of the hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n t o s e t aside the Missouri c o u r t ' s orders, she did not have funds t o r e t a i n Missouri counsel and she f a i l e d t o appear pro s e due t o a f a i l u r e t o give her n o t i c e of a postponed hearing date. In i t s conclusions of l a w the t r i a l court here found t h a t it was not bound by the action of the Missouri court; t h a t the Montana court had f u l l j u r i s d i c t i o n over the adoption and was e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on t h e consent of the Missouri court, the proper authority t o grant consent a t t h e time; t h a t the court was not compelled t o honor the l a t e r order r e t r a c t i n g t h e consent; and, f u r t h e r , t h a t the l a t e r Missouri proceedings were uncontested and based upon the f a l s e allegations of p e t i t i o n e r Melvin Conley t h a t he did not have notice, when i n f a c t he was before t h e court when custody was lodged with the ~ n n i s ' . The court went further i n i t s conclusions and found abandonment by reason of p e t i t i o n e r s ' f a i l u r e t o do anything f o r the children f o r over f i v e years. Appellant p e t i t i o n e r s s t a t e t h e issues t o be: 1 ) Whether they were ever "judicially deprived of the (11 custody'' within the meaning of section 61-205 (c) , R.C .M. 1947? 2) I f not, were they e n t i t l e d t o notice of the adoption? Respondent argues t h a t t h i s is a habeas corpus proceeding and appellants a r e attempting t o use habeas corpus t o c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k the adoption decree. W e agree and w i l l t r e a t the matter a s i t was brought by appellants, a s one of habeas corpus seeking t h e custody of the children. Habeas corpus being equitable i n nature the paramount consider- a t i o n is the welfare of the children. I n an Oklahoma c h i l d custody case, Mathews v. Grant, (Okla. 1958), 326 P.2d 1043, the court held t h a t i t was not bound t o d e l i v e r the custody of a c h i l d t o a p a r t i c u l a r claimant but must leave it i n such custody a s the welfare of the c h i l d appears t o require a t the time. Here, the t r i a l court found the n a t u r a l parents u n f i t t o havemstady of t h e children and t h a t t h e i r welfare and bess i n t e r e s t s would be b e s t served by leaving them with respondent. such finding is convincingly established by the record and we note with i n t e r e s t t h a t on appeal p e t i t i o n e r s do not a l l e g e t h a t the welfare of the children would b e s t be served by the t r a n s f e r of custody t o them. Thewelfare of the children i s the r u l e i n Montana recently s t a t e d i n Riley v. Byrne, 145 Mont. 138, 145, 399 P.2d 980, a case where t h e Court considered the welfare of children i n refusing t o s e t aside a decree of adoption brought on the basis t h a t t h e parents' consent was obtained by fraud. There t h e Court said "* * t h a t t h e adoption was f o r the welfare and best i n t e r e s t s of the two minor children. 11 Whether t h e action is treated as habeas corpus o r a p e t i t i o n t o s e t a s i d e an adoption, the welfare of the child i s t h e paramount factor. I n a recent case before t h e Supreme Court of Oklahoma, I n r e Adoption of Graves, (O34.a. 1971), 481 P.2d 136, 138, the Court s a i d t h e "welfare of the child i s not t o be ignored i n con- sidering the v a l i d i t y of t h e adoption proceedings." In an Arizona case, In r e Adoption of Hammer, 15 Ariz.App. 196, 487 P.2d, 417, 419, it was said: "* * * Moreover, from a s t r i c t l y humanitarian stand- point, there must be an end t o the emotional s t r e s s and s t r a i n t h a t i s involved i n the n a t u r a l parents' attempt t o gain custody of t h e i r child. This s t r a i n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y acute t o the adoptive c h i l d i t s e l f , who may have established strong bonds of affection and love f o r t h e adoptive parents, and t o the adoptive parents who must s u f f e r the spectre of losing t h e i r child. Also, sound reasons of public policy demand t h a t orders of adoption have f i n a l i t y so a s t o encourage adoption of children who might otherwise be homeless. 11 However, once a j u d i c i a l determination is made giving rise t o a f i n a l order of adoption, and t h a t new r e l a t i o n - ship i s allowed t o mature, then the courts of t h i s state should only n u l l i f y t h a t new relationship f o r the most cogent reasons. 11 Considering the record i n the i n s t a n t case, there a r e numerous grounds upon which the adoption i t s e l f could have been sustained without the consent of petitioners. A period of s i x years of absolute abandonment of the three children with no support, no contact, and no v i s i t s by e i t h e r parent i s the most basic ground. While petitioners argue t h a t the d i s t r i c t court made no specific finding of abandonment and nonsupport a t the time of the adoption, the matter i s one i n equity and no specific finding of f a c t and conclusion of law a r e required--just a decree. The general obligations of parenthood include these minimum standards: 1) Express love and affection f o r the child. 2) Express personal concern over the health, education and general welfare of the child. 3) The duty t o supply the necessary food, clothing and medical care. 4) The duty t o provide an adequate home. 5 ) A duty t o give s o c i a l and religious guidance, Here, p e t i t i o n e r s f a l l f a r short of these minimum standards. See: Ottley v. H i l l , 21 Utah 2d 396, 446 P.2d 301; Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo.App. 177, 492 P.2d 81; Neasham v. McNair, 103 Iowa 695, 72 N.W. 773; 59 Am J u r 2d, Parent and Child, 5 s 50-60; 47 A.L.R. 110. The Supreme Court of Idaho i n Finn v. Rees, 65 Idaho 181, 141 P.2d 976, 980, a case very similar i n f a c t s , i n a habeas corpus p e t i t i o n noted there was ample evidence of abandonment t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s findings and refused t o vacate a decree of adoption merely because the t r i a l court had premised i t s adoption upon the consent of the great grandparents. Of particular import i s the court's holding, c i t i n g an Oregon case, t h a t : 11 J ; $ ; * Proceedings i n habeas corpus a r e i n the nature of a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k , and consequently e r r o r s o r i r r e g u l a r i t i e s which might render a 'udgment voidable cannot be reached by habeas corpus. 4 See also: Conville v. Bakke, (Okla.1964), 400 P.2d 179; In re ~oermann's Estate, 108 Mont. 386, 91 P.2d 394; Wells v. Stanger, 123 Mont. 26, 207 P.2d 549; In r e Pepin's Estate, 53 Mont. 240, 163 P. 104. The d i s t r i c t court's order denying the petition for w r i t of habeas corpus was correct. N o prejudical error having been shown, the order of that court is affirmed. W e concur: 8 ustice Hon. ~ l f u E. Coate, District Judge, s i t t i n g for Chief Justice James T. Harrison. M r , J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, specially concurring: I concur i n affirming the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s dismissal of the habeas corpus p e t i t i o n . The reason f o r t h i s special concurrence i s t h a t I do not understand t h e b a s i s of t h e majority holding. Is it based on the p r i o r custody orders of the Missouri court? O n the Montana adoption proceedings? O n an independent adjudication of custody i n the habeas corpus proceeding? I n t h i s case n e i t h e r t h e Missouri court nor the Montana court i n t h e adoption proceedings had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the mother. She was permanently deprived of her parental r i g h t s and her children were adopted by another, a l l without giving her n o t i c e of t h e proceedings and affording her an opportunity t o be heard. The ultimate merits of the case cannot correct j u r i s d i c t i o n a l defects. For t h i s reason I would hold the Missouri custody awards and the Montana adoption proceedings void. I would hold the independent custody adjudication of the Montana court i n t h e habeas corpus proceeding correct and f u l l y supported by t h e evidence, O n t h i s basis I would deny the p e t i t i o n f o r habeas corpus. Justice.