Case Title: MATTER OF M N

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-08-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 82--119 I N T H E SUPfiEME COURT CF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 I N T H E M A T T E R O F M.N., R.N., B.N., S.N. and W.N., Neglected and Dependent c h i l d r e n . 1 from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth 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 o f Fergus, The Honorable R. D. BlcPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Torger S. Oaas, Lewistown, Montana Craig R. Buehler, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: Bradley B. P a r r i s h , Lewistown, Montana William E. Berger, Lewistown, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : J u l y 1, 1982 Decided: August 11, 1982 F i l e d : AUG 1 1 1982 M r . ~ u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s a p p e a l w a s b r o u g h t by Mrs. Ann S p a r k s , t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother of t h e f i v e N . c h i l d r e n , who i n t e r v e n e d t o seek c u s t o d y of h e r g r a n d c h i l d r e n . She s e e k s t o have t h e judgment, e n t e r e d by t h e Honorable R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l District, g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y of t h e f i v e N. c h i l d r e n to t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS) . The n a t u r a l p a r e n t s of t h e f i v e N. c h i l d r e n , M.N., R.N., B.N., S.N., and W.N., have had problems c a r i n g f o r and r a i s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n o v e r a long p e r i o d of time. They have had c o n t a c t w i t h w e l f a r e a g e n c i e s i n two o t h e r states p r i o r to t h e i r a r r i v a l i n Montana. The N . f a m i l y came to Fergus County, Montana, t o a v o i d c o n t a c t w i t h t h e w e l f a r e a u t h o r i t i e s i n t h e S t a t e of Washington. During t h e p e r i o d t h e f a m i l y was i n Fergus County, t h e youngest c h i l d , W. N . , was d e c l a r e d dependent and n e g l e c t e d , b u t was r e t u r n e d t o h i s n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . On October 3 , 1980, t h e SRS r e c e i v e d word t h a t t h e N. f a m i l y was p l a n n i n g to l e a v e Lewistown. The SRS t o o k emergency c u s t o d y o f a l l t h e c h i l d r e n a t t h a t t i m e and h a s had c u s t o d y s i n c e . An a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g was h e l d , p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 41-3-404 MCA. A t t h a t h e a r i n g a l l f i v e N. c h i l d r e n were d e c l a r e d y o u t h s i n need of care, and they remained i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e SRS. A d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g , r e q u i r e d by S e c t i o n 41-3-406, MCA, was h e l d ~ r i d a y , J a n u a r y 29, 1982. A t t h a t time M r s . S p a r k s , t h e a p p e l l a n t , t e s t i f i e d s h e moved to Montana i n September o f 1981 t o see what s h e c o u l d d o about t h e k i d s ( g r a n d c h i l d r e n ) ; t h a t she was p r e s e n t l y working, b u t was planning t o move back t o Washington. She also t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w a s pre- s e n t a t t h e a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g . Upon completion of t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g , Judge IYlcPhillips e n t e r e d h i s judgment t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f , G.N. and J . N , t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s of t h e f i v e N. c h i l d r e n and awarding c u s t o d y to t h e SRS w i t h t h e r i g h t to con- s e n t to a d o p t i o n . T h i s appeal followed. The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d to t h i s Court f o r review is: Did t h e District Court err i n awarding c u s t o d y of t h e f i v e minor N. c h i l d r e n to t h e SRS, w i t h t h e r i g h t to c o n s e n t to adop- t i o n r a t h e r than to t h e i r p a t e r n a l grandmother, Mrs. Ann Sparks? A grandmother d o e s n o t , by v i r t u e of h e r s t a t u s a s a g r a n d p a r e n t , have any s u p e r i o r r i g h t of a d o p t i o n o r c u s t o d y to t h a t of a n o n - r e l a t i v e . Graham v. C h i l d r e n s S e r v i c e D i v i s i o n , Department of Human Resources, ( 1 9 7 9 ) r 39 0r.App. 27, 591 P.2d 375; In R e t h e People of t h e I n t e r e s t of C. P. and D.P. C h i l d r e n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 34 Colo.App, 54, 524 P.2d 316; S e c t i o n 41-3-406, MCA, sup- p o r t s t h i s p o s i t i o n a l s o . It states: " D i s p o s i t i o n a l Hearing. (1) I f a youth is found t o be abused, n e g l e c t e d , or dependent under 41-3-404, t h e c o u r t a f t e r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a l h e a r i n g may e n t e r its judgment making any o f t h e follow- i n g d i s p o s i t i o n s (emphasis added ) to p r o t e c t t h e w e l f a r e of t h e youth: " ( a ) . . . " ( b ) t r a n s f e r l e g a l c u s t o d y to any of t h e f o l l o w i n g : " ( i i i ) a r e l a t i v e or o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l who, a f t e r s t u d y by a s o c i a l s e r v i c e agency d e s i g n a t e d by t h e c o u r t , is found by t h e c o u r t to be q u a l i f i e d to r e c e i v e and care f o r youth; . . .I1 T h i s s e c t i o n is n o t mandatory b u t p l a c e s t h e d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court whether or n o t t o award c u s t o d y to a r e l a t i v e . I n t h e Matter of T.J.D., J . L . D . and R.J.W. (1980), M T I ---- 615 P.2d 212, 37 S t . R p t r . 1385, 1390. Where c u s t o d y is concerned, t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d r e n is t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I n t h e Matter of T.J.D., J.L.D. and R. J . W . , s u p r a ; In R e Gore Youths i n Need of Care ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 PIT 321, 570 P.2d 1110; In t h e Matter of I n q u i r y i n t o J J S ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 M T 202, 577 P.2d 378; In t h e Matter of Burgoff and Berry ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 M T 116, 551 P.2d 656: In t h e Matter of D e c l a r i n g t h e J o n e s and P e t e r s o n C h i l d r e n Dependent and Neglected C h i l d r e n v. P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 M T 1, 539 P.2d 1193. The District Court i n t h i s case gave s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n to t h e grandmother' s r e q u e s t b u t was compelled to b a l a n c e t h i s w i t h t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d r e n as is evidenced by t h e C o u r t ' s Fin- d i n g of F a c t N o . IV. "The p a t e r n a l grandmother of t h e f i v e ( 5 ) c h i l d r e n , ANN SPARKS, h a s asked f o r c u s t o d y of a l l or any p a r t o f t h e f i v e ( 5 ) c h i l d r e n . Mrs. Sparks is a widow and 57 y e a r s o l d . She p r e s e n t l y works a t E d d i e ' s Corner as a cook f i v e ( 5 ) n i g h t s a week and l i v e s i n Moore. Over t h e p a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) or f o u r ( 4 ) months, s h e n o t o n l y o b t a i n e d employment b u t h a s managed to s a v e up FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00). M r s . Sparks p l a n s to e v e n t u a l l y r e t u r n t o Washington where s h e r e s i d e s w i t h h e r 90-year-old f a t h e r . She, by n e c e s s i t y , h a s to work f o r a l i v i n g . The Court f i n d s t h a t it would be a burden upon Mrs. Sparks to award h e r c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n . The Court f i n d s t h a t i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y s h e would be unable to resist t h e i n t r u s i o n s of b o t h J . N . and G.N.; t h a t it would i n t h e long r u n b e c o n t r a r y to t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of s a i d c h i l d r e n o r any of them to award c u s t o d y to Mrs. S p a r k s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t t i m e is somewhat of t h e e s s e n c e and t h e p r o p e n s i t i e s of t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . " F u r t h e r , t h e Court f i n d s t h a t it is i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of s a i d c h i l d r e n t h a t they c o n t i n u e to be p l a c e d w i t h t h e Department of S o c i a l S e r v i c e s t o c o n t i n u e t h e e x c e l l e n t p r o g r e s s s a i d c h i l d r e n have shown s i n c e t h e Department h a s had t h e i r custody." A p p e l l a n t , grandmother, c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p o l i c y set o u t i n s e c t i o n 41-3-101(l) ( d ) , MCA, of p r e s e r v i n g t h e u n i t y and w e l f a r e o f t h e f a m i l y whenever p o s s i b l e , was n o t followed by t h e District Court. But, as t h i s Court h a s made a b u n d a n t l y c l e a r i n its p r i o r d e c i s i o n of I n R e t h e Matter of I n q u i r y i n t o JJS, s u p r a , " [ F l a m i l y u n i t y need not be p r e s e r v e d a t t h e expense of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t interest,'' 577 P.2d a t 382. I n t h e p r e s e n t case b o t h t h e grandmother and t h e SRS pre- s e n t e d e v i d e n c e as t o t h e i r a b i l i t y to s e r v e t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . The SRS p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s i n d i - v i d u a l needs outweighed t h e i r need to remain t o g e t h e r . C o n t r a r y t o t h i s , Mrs. Sparks b r o u g h t i n a p s y c h o l o g i s t who t e s t i f i e d t h a t s e p a r a t i o n of s i b l i n g s c a u s e s damage to t h e i r emotional development and, t h e r e f o r e , it would be b e t t e r f o r t h e c h i l d r e n to p l a c e them w i t h Mrs. Sparks. There was also con£ l i c t i n g e v i - dence i n o t h e r areas concerning Mrs. Sparks1 a b i l i t y to raise t h e c h i l d r e n . Concern was also voiced as Mrs. Sparks t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e wishes t o r e t u r n to Sedro Wooly, Washington, w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , which is o n l y 50 miles from where t h e c h i l d r e n ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t s are now l i v i n g , t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n might be r e t u r n e d t o them. I n c o n s i d e r i n g a l l t h e e v i d e n c e t o g e t h e r w i t h such f a c t o r s a s M r s . Sparks1 a g e , l i v i n g arrangement and need to work, t h e District Court e n t e r e d a judgment f i n d i n g it i n t h e best i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h a t c u s t o d y be awarded to t h e SRS, w i t h t h e r i g h t to c o n s e n t t o a d o p t i o n . The District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s e n j o y a presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s , and s i n c e t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t h i s judgment, w e can- n o t and do n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h Judge M c P h i l l i p s l judgment. .& The judgment of t h e District Court is ,&irmed. J u s t i c e , ' W e concur: pA--e-4wcltDweQJ Chief J u s t i c e