Case Title: LOTTON v LOTTON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13067 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1975 C A R O L LOTTON, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - DEAN R. LOTTON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. Thomas Judge,presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Frank Altman argued, Havre, Montana For Respondent: Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana Van H. Barron argued, Havre, Montana Submitted: November 12, 1975 Decided : FEB - 3 7976 Filed: j . ~ - j 3 .y:t M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , H i l l County, awarding custody of minor c h i l d r e n t o Carol Lotton, p l a i n t i f f . Carol and Dean Lotton were married November 22, 1969. Two c h i l d r e n w e r e i s s u e of t h i s marriage: Tony, now age 5, and Greg, now age 3. P l a i n t i f f f i l e d an a c t i o n f o r divorce i n October, 1974, asking custody of t h e c h i l d r e n , c h i l d support, and a property settlement. Defendant contested t h e divorce a c t i o n , i n i t i a l l y wishing t o prevent t h e divorce, but subsequently c o n t e s t i n g t h e custody of t h e children. T r i a l on t h e matter w a s held before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , without jury, on March 2 6 , 1975. O n April 30, 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted t h e divorce with a property settlement. The c o u r t a l s o found both p a r t i e s t o be f i t and proper persons t o have c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l of t h e c h i l d r e n ; f i n d i n g f u r t h e r t h a t due t o t h e tender y e a r s of t h e c h i l d r e n , it would be i n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t they be placed i n t h e c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l of t h e i r mother. Defendant is appealing from t h e award of custody of t h e minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e mother. The s o l e i s s u e presented f o r determination by t h i s Court is whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g t h e custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r mother. The r u l e f o r awarding custody of minor c h i l d r e n i s set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947: "In awarding t h e custody of a minor * * * t h e c o u r t o r o f f i c e r i s guided by t h e follow- ing considerations: "1. By what appears t o be f o r 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 i n r e s p e c t t o i t s temporal and i t s mental and moral welfare * * *. "2. A s between p a r e n t s adversely claiming the custody or guardianship, neither parent is entitled to it as of right; but other things being equal, if the child is of tender years, it should be given to the mother; if it be of an age to require education and preparation for labor or business, then to the father. " The preference for granting custody of children of tender years to the mother is a policy of long standing in Montana. In Hoppe v. Hoppe, 138 Mont. 239, 241, 356 P.2d 44, this Court said: "The courts throughout the country recog- nize the indisputable proposition that there is no substitute for a mother's love, affec- tion, and care of her own offspring." See, also, Love v. Love, Mont . , 533 P.2d 280, 31 St. Rep. 1015. Defendant argues all things are not equal, as required by section 91-4515(2), prior to giving custody preference to the mother . The record is replete with testimony regarding plaintiff's morals and her behavior prior to and after her separation from defendant. On more than one occasion prior to the separation plaintiff called a baby-sitker after defendant went to work on the graveyard shift so she might go to a local nightclub to dance. Each of these times she admonished the baby-sitter not to tell defendant where she had gone or why. After the separation she had men to her apartment until late in the evening, sometimes while the children were there. Plaintiff testified she was bored with the marriage and wanted some excitement. On the other hand, testimony appears on the record of great affection between plain- tiff and children; that the children were always well fed, well rested and never beaten (by either parent). The testimony is n0.t clear as to whether, after the separation, plaintiff's nights out at local nightclubs were while the children were at her apartment with a baby-sitter, or staying with their father under his visita- tion rights. - 3 - P l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d defendant d i d n o t show any a f f e c - t i o n toward t h e c h i l d r e n u n t i l a f t e r t h e separation. She claims he was always hunting, f i s h i n g o r r i d i n g h i s motorcycles. De- f e n d a n t ' s testimony c o n t r a d i c t s t h e s e claims. The record contains c o n f l i c t i n g , sometimes c o n t r a d i c t o r y testimony on t h e morals, h a b i t s and c h a r a c t e r of p l a i n t i f f and defendant; much of it self-serving. The one t h i n g both p a r t i e s could agree on i s t h a t t h e o t h e r p a r t y is a f i t and proper person t o have c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l of t h e c h i l d r e n . But each argues he o r she is " f i t t e r " than t h e o t h e r . The e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e of a p p e l l a t e review i n c a s e s of t h i s n a t u r e has been s t a t e d by t h i s Court i n Jewett v. J e w e t t , 73 Mont. 591, 237 P. 702; Williams v. Williams, 85 Mont. 446, 278 P. 1009; G i l b e r t v. G i l b e r t , Mont . , 533 P.2d 1079, 32 S t . Rep. 163; E s t e l l v. E s t e l l , Mont . , 537 P.2d 1082, 32 S t . Rep. 648; McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 1189; Hurly v. Hurly, 147 Mont. 118, 4 1 1 P.2d 359; K e r r i - gan v. Kerrigan, 115 Mont. 136, 139 P.2d 533; I n re Thompson, 77 Mont. 466, 251 P. 163; and does n o t need repeating here. Our review of t h e e n t i r e record d i s c l o s e s no evidence t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abused its d i s c r e t i o n . To t h e contrary, it is c l e a r t h e c o u r t acted i n accord with t h e law and t h e evidence i n granting custody t o t h e mother. W e concur: C