Case Title: BONSER v COUNTY OF CASCADE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12287 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA BARBARA -.BONSEq, Formerly Barbara Sanders, Appellant, COUNTY OF C A S C A D E and STATE O F M O N T A N A , Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Truman G. Bradford, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Barney Reagan, Helena, Montana Richard Shors argued, Cut Bank, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas Mahan, Special Assistant Attorney General, appeared, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourtleau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana Michael J. Greely, Deputy County Attorney, Great F a l l s Montana James Walsh argued, Deputy County Attorney, Great Fa 11s , Montana Submitted : February 27, 1973 M r , J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from an order granting permanent custody with the r i g h t t o consent t o adoption t o the S t a t e Welfare De- partment of Montana. The order was made concerning three named children by the d i s t r i c t court of the eighth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Cascade County, the Hon. Truman G. Bradford, presiding. The appeal is by the mother. The single issue i s whether the d i s t r i c t court had j u r i s - diction t o enter an order dated February 9, 1972, granting per- manent custody t o the s t a t e . A p e t i t i o n dated June 11, 1971, requesting custody of f i v e of appellant's children was f i l e d July 9, 1971, by the s t a t e . A d i s t r i c t court order dated July 9, 1971, set a hearing f o r July 21, 1971, on the p e t i t i o n f o r custody and ordered a c i t a t i o n be issued and served on the n a t u r a l parents. The s h e r i f f ' s return showed service of the c i t a t i o n on appellant on July 10, 1971, and on the f a t h e r of one of the children on July 12, 1971, The d i s t r i c t court record f o r July 21, 1971, indicates the court granted a motion by the s t a t e ' s attorney t o continue the matter f o r three months with temporary custody i n the s t a t e , and the matter was continued t o October 20, 1971. O n November 9, 1971, the s t a t e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n dated November 1, 1971, f o r permanent custody and the r i g h t t o consent t o adoption f o r three of appellant's children. A document e n t i t l e d "Admission of Service" and dated November 4, 1971, was f i l e d on November 11, 1971. This document stated: I I Service of the P e t i t i o n f o r Permanent Custody i n the above e n t i t l e d matter, and r e c e i p t of a t r u e copy thereof, is hereby admitted and acknow- ledged t h i s 4th day of November, 1971." The document showed the signature of Gregory H. Warner, Subpoenas where issued t o several witnesses f o r a hearing on November 18, 1971. Appellant and her attorney, Gregory 13. Warner, were present a t the hearing. Testimony was presented t o the court by respondent and appellant. Appellant urges a lack of j u r i s d i c t i o n by the t r i a l court i n t h a t no formal c i t a t i o n was issued f o r the p e t i t i o n seeking permanent custody f i l e d November 9, 1971. I n t h i s connection appellant urges t h a t service of the p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody on appellant's attorney, or her appearance with her attorney f o r hearing and going forward with t h e hearing, was not e f f e c t i v e f o r any j u r i s d i c t i o n a l purposes, The record i s c l e a r t h a t appellant voluntarily appeared with her attorney, brought up the j u r i s d i c t i o n question, was offered a postponement of a week, and then agreed t o proceed with a hearing on the merits of the p e t i t i o n , J u s t the foregoing statement of the s i t u a t i o n answers the issue, Clearly any objection t o j u r i s d i c t i o n was waived; and j u s t a s c l e a r l y the court already had j u r i s d i c t i o n over the children and the mother. But, t o c l a r i f y f u r t h e r , the followi.ng record is quoted: "MR. W A L S H : For the record, the father of the children involved i n t h i s hearing i s dead. The f a t h e r of [one c h i l d ] is a patient a t the Veterans Administration Hospital a t Fort Harrison, He has given a written consent and waiver of notice and consent t o adoption already so he i s not present. For the record the mother of the children is Barbara Bonser Lang, who is not i n Court. 'ITHE COURT: A 1 1 r i g h t , "MR. WARNER: I have one preliminary matter. Has a c i t a t i o n been served on )lrs. Bonser? "fa. W A L S H : I ' m sure it was, "MR. WARNER: Pfrs, Bonser Lang, "THE COURT: She seems t o be here i n court, " b ~ . WALSH: She i s i n court i n any event, "MR. FIARNER: For the record I would l i k e t o make an objection. There a r e two p e t i t i o n s a s I under- stand it which have been f i l e d , One was f i l e d July 9, 197J, which i s an open p e t i t i o n . It doesn't specify permanent o r temporary custody, A s I understand it, p r i o r t o t h i s time the children were picked up. Secondly, on November 1st a second p e t i t i o n f o r per- manent custody was f i l e d seeking permanent custody. "THE COURT: It appears t o be November 9th, " 1 4 R . WARNER: Excuse me, It i s dated November lst, The p e t i t i o n s e t s f o r t h t h e i r proceeding pursuant t o Section 10-504 which is the s t a t u t e governing a dependent and neglected proceeding. That section does specify i n mandatory language t h a t a c i t a t i o n s h a l l be issued upon the parents of the children involved who a r e present i n the County. I would l i k e t o make an objection a t l e a s t t o the second p e t i t i o n , t h a t t h i s c i t a t i o n has not been served upon the mother and t h a t such a defect i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l defect and I would r e f e r t o Henry Young, which held t h a t the judgment was void when t h e c i t a t i o n was not served and S t a t e ex r e l . Cowan, 312 Pac.2d 119, which s p e c i f i c a l l y held t h a t c i t a t i o n fixing the date and the time of hearing must be issued and served upon the parents a s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l prere- q u i s i t e t o the court determining custody pursuant t o any p e t i t i o n t h a t i s f i l e d , " THE COURT: In those cases, did anybody appear? "IB, WARNER: Yes. "tfR. F T A L S H : I f I may, your IJonor. The o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n i n t h i s case was f i l e d on the 11th day of June, 1971. I a m sure the record and the minutes, minute e n t r i e s i n t h i s case, w i l l show t h a t the mother of a l l f i v e of these children have appeared previously t o t h i s and has appeared i n the company of counsel and has been represented by counsel. The record w i l l a l s o show, the f i l e w i l l show, t h a t on t h e 4th day of November, 1971, a copy of the p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody was served on counsel f o r the mother and t h a t the hearing on the o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n had been postponed until---at l e a s t twice with the consent of counsel who represented Mrs. Bonser, M r s . Bonser has appeared previously with counsel and, i f the Court please, the o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n was served upon her and the Court assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h a t time, Since t h a t time it would be a useless and meaningless a c t t o reserve her since she was represented by counsel. "MR. WARNER: Your Honor, we do not deny we have n o t i c e of the o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n , and I admitted service on the second p e t i t i o n , The only objection I am r a i s i n g i s the one t h a t is s e t f o r t h i n the s t a t u t e t h a t requires t h a t a c i t a t i o n fixing the day and time of the hearing of such p e t i t i o n s h a l l be served upon one o r both of the parents and t o the extent t h a t t h a t is a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l requirement, we do r a i s e t h a t objection. And it r e l a t e s p a r t i - cularly t o the subsequent peti&n t h a t was f i l e d f o r permanent custody. N o w on the o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n ---you say i t was f i l e d July--June 111 "MR, W A L S H : 1 ' m not sure of the date of the f i l i n g , "THE COURT: The o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n was f i l e d on July the 9th. " M R . WARNER: July the 9th, Secondly, I would l i k e t o make a second objection t h a t it is m y understanding of the f a c t s t h a t the children were picked up without process on approximately June l l t h , o r June 15th s f 1971, and t h a t the s t a t u t e requires t h a t the o f f i c e r so proceeding pursuant t o Section 10-503, it s t a t e s : '1t s h a l l be the duty of said o f f i c e r within 48 hours thereafter t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n and proceed a s herein provided f o r . ' To t h a t extent, we would make the objection t o the o r i g i n a l petition t h a t i t was not f i l e d within 48 hours of the time the children were picked up. "MR. W A L S H : I f I may, your Honor, the S t a t e con- tends any such objection was waived by any party who may r a i s e the objection a t a l l by v i r t u e of the f a c t t h a t she again did appear i n court pursuant t o the c i t a t i o n on the 21st day of July. A t t h a t time, i n the presence of counsel, and I think the minutes w i l l show t h i s , there was a s t i p u l a t i o n t h a t the children could be kept i n the custody of the Welfare Department u n t i l the 20th of October, a t which time on the 20th of October the matter was again continued with the consent of counsel and with the consent of the mother. And again contained u n t i l today, both by s t i p u l a t i o n of counsel and the mother. "MR. WARNER: Your Honor, we recognize t h a t we have stipulated t o t h a t temporary custody, but the objec- t i o n we a r e making i s purely jurisdictional. And j u r i s d i c t i o n has t o be determined a t the time of the commencement of the action. I f it was lacking a t the time the p e t i t i o n was f i l e d then the court would be without power t o exercise any determination pur- suant t o t h a t petition. "THE COURT: Let m e ask you, do you want t o hear t h i s next week o r do you want t o hear it today? I can continue the matter u n t i l next Thursday. She i s here and we w i l l let her lcnow s o t h a t she has had--- t h a t w i l l take the place of the c i t a t i o n I would hope. She i s here and present and would know. I f you want t o hear i t next week, we could come back next week and do it, I f you want t o hear it now, we can hear it now. "MR. WARNER: I a m not going t o waive any r i g h t s she may have t o the j u r i s d i c t i o n i f there is any defect i n the record a s it stands now, "THE COURT: A l l r i g h t , She knows now she w i l l be here next Thursday. "MR. WARNER: I don't know i f t h a t is the solution t o the problem. "THE COURT: It c e r t a i n l y does it. The only purpose of the c i t a t i o n i s t o give them n o t i c e t o be here so they know when the hearing is. That i s the purpose of the c i t a t i o n , I f she knows, why does she know. "MR. WARNER: W e a r e willing t o proceed a t t h i s time, but 1 ' m not going t o waive any objection t h a t we may have t o the service of the c i t a t i o n . "THE C O U R T : H o w did she get notice t o be here today? "MR. WARNER: After considerable discussion we were prepared t o come here a t 10:30 and it was postponed u n t i l 2:00, " T H E COURT: H o w did she know it was today? "MR. WARNER: I personally went t o her house a t 5:30 yesterday and t o l d her the hearing was t o be held today a t 10:30. "THE COURT: D o you need any f u r t h e r time t o prepare f o r the hearing? H o w long have you known about it? "MR.. WARNER: W e a r e ready t o proceed with the hearing i f the Court wants t o proceed. "THE C O U R T : A l l r i g h t , l e t ' s go. I I ~ p ~ e l l a n t ' s argument hinges e n t i r e l y on the formality of issuance and service of a c i t a t i o n . However, appellant's argument overlooks the c l e a r f a c t t h a t the court already had j u r i s d i c t i o n and appellant's actions were a waiver a s t o pro- cedural r i g h t s , Appellant c i t e s section 10-504, R.C,M. 1947, which s p e c i f i e s the issuance of c i t a t i o n and service of notice f o r the obvious purpose of due process of law and fairness, It provides f o r two days notice, It i s designed t o give n o t i c e f o r preparation of f a c t s o r defenses. It provides f o r temporary, expedient measures with subsequent formal proceedings. J u s t a s here, under the record heretofore s e t f o r t h , once jurisdi.c- t i o n i s had interested p a r t i e s may waive t h e i r r i g h t s . Appellant a l s o c i t e s S t a t e ex r e l . Cowan v. D i s t r i c t Court, 131 Mont, 502, 312 P.2d 119, f o r the principle t h a t a c i t a t i o n must issue a s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l prerequisite. Cowan does stand f o r the proposition t h a t i f anyone other than the welfare de- partment brings the action, it i s mandatory t h a t a c i t a t i o n issue and be served on t h e welfare department, a s section 10-504 provides. In the instant case, a s previously s t a t e d , j u r i s d i c t i o n was had a t a l l times. The mother was represented by counsel a t a l l times. She had a s e r i e s of hearings and postponements and f i n a l l y appeared voluntarily. I f nothing e l s e , t h e c o u r t ' s order and direction on the day of hearing is, under these circumstances, a c i t a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o comply with the s t a t u t e . The appellant, through counsel, c l e a r l y waived the other procedural r i g h t s . W e find no e r r o r , Appellant has not urged nor argued the merits, but we have studied the t r a n s c r i p t and find the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the children, i n view of the evidence presented a t the hearing, show t h a t the d i s t r i c t court judge's order was proper. I > ' c i'r Jc 9 ; M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly and Mr..Justice Frank I, Haswell dissenting: W e dissent. W e do not quarrel with the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s findings on the merit a s it concerns the health and welfare of the children. The problem here i s whether the d i s t r i c t court had j u r i s - d i c t i o n i n t h i s case, t h a t is, the r i g h t t o hear and determine the matter a t a l l , Here the S t a t e of Montana f i l e d a p e t i t i o n on June 11, 1971, seeking temporary custody of f i v e children; had a proper c i t a t i o n issued; a hearing date s e t ; and the p a r t i e s served a s directed by section 10-504, R.C.M. 1947, and thereby acquired jurisdic- tion for that purpose. The hearing was continued for three months, with temporary custody i n the State, u n t i l October 20, 1971. That hearing was never held. O n November 9, 1971, the State of Montana f i l e d a new petition seeking permanent custody and the right t o consent t o adoption for only three of the five children. A proper c i t a t i o n was never issued or served on the parents. The State served the attorney for the parents under the amended complaint theory,with the petition. The State argues that the purpose of the c i t a t i o n and service i s for "notice" and therefore it has met the requirements of the statute. This i s a new action, not affecting a l l of the children i n the original petition for temporary custody, asking t o extinguish - a l l parental rights as opposed t o merely custody as was asked for originally. The issuance and service of citation is jurisdictional and failure t o comply leaves the court without authority t o act. This Court previously so held i n the following decision: I n the Matter of Declaring Georgia Arlene Young a Dependent and Neglected Child, 143 Mont. 230, 232, Associate Justices.