Case Title: MATTER OF FISHER v FISHER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-02-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13045 I N T H E SUPKEME COURT O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1975 LN THE M A T T E R OF DOUGLAS FISHER, JOHN FISHER and IVAN RONQUILLO, Youth i n Need of Care. Division of Child Welfare Services Department of Public Welfare of Montana, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs - GLORIA FISHER, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding . Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Vernard C. Anderson, Jr. argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent : Harold Hanser, County Attorney, B i l l i n g s , Montana Thomas Mahan argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : November 13, 1975 Decided: :EB - 5 1 9 - 7 6 Filed : 3 :9fb M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. A mother appeals from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, which adjudged her three minor children t o be "youth i n need of care" and awarded permanent custody t o t h e Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Appellant i s a 25 year old mother of 3 young children, one of whom was born out of wedlock. Tragic circumstances l e f t the mother d e s t i t u t e and the children fatherless. Because of circumstances which do not need r e c i t a t i o n , the mother has a h i s - tory of contact with the welfare department since 1969. The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services took temporary custody of the children i n January 1974 and by stipula- t i o n returned them t o the mother on o r about August 16, 1974, only t o retake them on December 31, 1974. A p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody was f i l e d on January 20, 1975, and was heard on March 21, 1975, without a jury. These issues a r e presented f o r review: 1. Whether there i s a privileged communication between a welfare s o c i a l worker and a mother with whom she i s working, so t h a t the worker cannot t e s t i f y against the mother i n a c h i l d custody proceeding; and, further, whether anything i n the f i l e of the welfare department can be used against t h e mother i n t h e pro- ceeding. 2. Whether t k r e was s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r the d i s t r i c t court t o remove the children from t h e i r mother under the provisions of section 10-1301, R.C.M. 1947. W e need not resolve the f i r s t issue because of our deter- mination t h a t there was not s u f f i c i e n t credible evidence t o support the finding by the d i s t r i c t court t h a t these minor children were I I youth i n need of care". Section 10-1301, R.C.M. 1947, provides: t " ~ e f i n i t i o n s . (1) ' c h i l d ' or ' ~ o u t h , f o r purposes of t h i s a c t , means any person under eighteen (18) years of age. I "(2) ' ~ b u s e ' or neglect' means: "(a) The commission o r omission of any a c t o r a c t s which m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t the normal physical or emotional development of a youth, any excessive physical injury, sexual a s s a u l t o r f a i l u r e t o t h r i v e , taking i n t o account the age and medical h i s t o r y of the youth, s h a l l be presumptive of 'material a f f e c t ' and nonaccidental; or I I (b) The commission o r omission of any a c t o r a c t s by any person i n the s t a t u s of parent, guardian o r custodian who thereby and by reason of physical o r mental incapacity o r other cause, refuses, o r with s t a t e and private a i d and assistance i s unable t o dis- charge the d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r proper and necessary subsistence, education, medical o r any other care necessary f o r h i s physical, moral and emotional well-being. "(3) ',~ependent youth' means a youth who i s abandoned, dependent upon the public f o r support, and who i s d e s t i t u t e or i s without parents or,guardian o r under the care and supervision of a s u i t a b l e adult o r who has no proper guidance t o provide f o r h i s necessary physical, moral and emotional well-being. A c h i l d may be considered dependent and l e g a l custody transferred t o a licensed agency i f the parent o r parents voluntarily relinquish custody of said child. " ( 4 ) 'youth i n need of care' means a youth who i s dependent o r i s sufferin6 from abuse o r neglect within the meaning of t h i s a c t . Appellant submits t h a t she has done nothing so heinous a s t o warrant having her children taken from her forever. She argues s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t the findings of f a c t numbered 9 through 15 by the d i s t r i c t court do not conform t o the evidence. Those findings s t a t e : "9. That the n a t u r a l mother * ; k + : has been unable t o provide f o r her children's normal physical, moral and emotional development; t h a t it has been necessary t o place the said children i n the custody of the Welfare Department on various d i f f e r e n t occasions due t o the mother's i n a b i l i t y t o care f o r t h e children. "10. That on August 16, 1974, the above matter was continued by the Court f o r a period of s i x (6) months; t h a t physical custody of the said minor children was returned t o the respondent and c e r t a i n guidelines were s e t out f o r her t o follow. "11. That the respondent has f a i l e d t o follow these guidelines and has f a i l e d t o cooperate with the Welfare Department i n caring f o r her children. "12. That on November 7, 1974, and November 27, 1974, t h e respondent requested t h e Welfare Department t o place her children i n the B i l l i n g s Children's Receiving Home. "13. That t h e respondent has moved numerous times and has f a i l e d t o keep t h e Welfare Department advised of her current address. "14. That t h e respondent on December 25, 1974, entered i n t o a w r i t t e n agreement with her mother-in-law $ : * 9: placing permanent custody of t h e s a i d children with * * * [the mother-in-law]. "15. That s a i d children a r e youth i n need of c a r e and i t i s i n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e i r custody be granted t o t h e Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services of t h e S t a t e of Montana, with t h e r i g h t of adoption, so plans can be made f o r t h e i r . f u t u r e s e c u r i t y and welfare. I 1 Respondent Division of Child Welfare Services maintains t h a t t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence of "youth i n need of care" and r e l i e s heavily on a "REPORT T O T H E COURT1' from t h e Yellowstone County Department of Public Welfare. Upon c a r e f u l review of t h e record w e a r e i n accord with appellant. It i s w e l l established t h a t t h i s Court's function on appeal i s t o determine whether t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evi- dence t o support t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s findings. Crncevich v. Georgetown Recreation Corp., M o n t . , 541 P.2d 56, 32 St.Rep. 963,966; Richardson v. Howard Motor Co., 163 Mont. 347, Respondent Division of Child Welfare Services c a l l e d e i g h t witnesses a t t h e hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody. Their testimony d i d not e s t a b l i s h t h a t appellant had "abused" o r "neglected" her children within t h e meaning of section 10-1301, o r t h a t they were "dependent youth" under t h a t s t a t u t e . A t most it was only c l e a r t h a t appellant had d i f f i c u l t y i n finding a per- manent home f o r her family. Necessarily then t h e remaining evidence before t h e d i s t r i c t court ---the "REPORT T O T H E COURT" from t h e Yellowstone County Department of Public Welfare---must e s t a b l i s h I I youth i n need of care" by substantial credible evidence i f the judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court i s t o stand. 11 The report i s a Summarized History" of appellant's contacts with l o c a l welfare agencies. It contains e n t r i e s f o r 35 dates covering the period from 1969 t o e a r l y 1974. Many of the e n t r i e s a r e not even material t o the i s s u e of whether appellant's children a r e "youth i n need of care". Other notations a r e rank hearsay o r come from unidentified sources and likewise should have been disregarded by the d i s t r i c t court. It i s impossible t o categorize i t s contents a s substantial credible evidence. Granted appellant and her children have encountered d i f f i c u l t i e s . The t r a g i c death of a husband and f a t h e r has had a large impact on t h e i r l i v e s . Suitable housing and a decent job a r e problems f o r many i n our society, but such adversity should not cause us t o dissolve the family absent a concrete showing t h a t it i s i n the best i n t e r e s t of the children involved. (See I n the Matter of Declaring Henderson, a dependent and neglected Child, Mont . , 542 P.2d 1204, 32 St. Rep. 1154, 1157, and cases c i t e d therein.) The l e g i s l a t u r e has declared the policy of t h i s s t a t e f o r abused, neglected, and dependent children i n section 10-1300, R.C.M. 1947, which provides: "1t i s hereby declared t o be the policy of the s t a t e of Montana : "(1) t o ensure t h a t a l l youth a r e afforded an adequate physical and emotional environment t o promote normal development; "(2) t o compel i n proper cases the parent o r guardian of a youth t o perform t h e moral and l e g a l duty owed t o the youth; "(3) t o achieve these purposes i n a family en- vironment whenever possible; and "(4) t o preserve the unity and welfare of the family whenever possible." (Emphasis supplied). I n t h e i n s t a n t case a t t h e hearing on p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody, we hold there was not substantial credible evidence t o support findings No. 9 , 1 1 and 15 of the d i s t r i c t court which bottomed the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s conclusions of law and judgment t h a t these children should be taken from t h e i r mother and permanent custody awarded t o t h e Department of Social Rehabili- t a t i o n Services. This was a c l e a r abuse of discretion by the d i s t r i c t court. Following from such a f a i l u r e of proof, the l e g i s l a t i v e policy t o preserve the unity and welfare of the family must prevail. The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed and the case i s remanded t o t h a t court f o r entry of an order not inconsistent t o what has been s t a t e d herein with such further consideration being given the welfare of the children and t h e mother on a current b a s i s a s may be indicated. * J u s t i c e w 4 Concur: / i' ' Chief J u s t i c e