Case Title: MARRIAGE OF BIER v SHERRARD

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-02-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 80-23 I N T H E S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF P E G G Y J O S H E R R A R D BIER, ( a l s o a Respondent) P e t i t i o n e r and Appellant, LESLIE D. SHERRARD, ( a l s o an Appellant) Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth 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 of Cascade. Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert J. Emrnons argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: James, Gray and McCafferty, Great F a l l s , Montana Robert F. James argued, Great F a l l s , Montana Submitted: January 15, 1981 Decided : FE B 5 1981 Filed: yF i; jsgf7 gKj p , ' (?- - , L34v,,&'P /~Dn;*ss i7- k Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e f?8;rt. Peggy S h e r r a r d B i e r a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of t h e District Court g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y of t h e i r c h i l d r e n to Leslie S h e r r a r d . Leslie S h e r r a r d c r o s s - a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s f o r appeal t o a p p e l l a n t . Peggy and Leslie S h e r r a r d married i n 1972, and t w o c h i l d - r e n were born of t h e m a r r i a g e . On J a n u a r y 4, 1978, t h e District C o u r t e n t e r e d a d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n , awarding temporary c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n to Peggy, w i t h a f i n a l c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n to b e made af ter a p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of both p a r e n t s and t h e o l d e s t c h i l d . T h i r t e e n months l a t e r , Leslie S h e r r a r d s o u g h t per- manent custody. A h e a r i n g was h e l d i n May 1979, and c u s t o d y was awarded t o Leslie. Peggy S h e r r a r d B i e r appealed. On motion of a p p e l l a n t , t h e d i s t r i c t judge ordered r e s p o n d e n t to pay $2,500 f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and costs on a p p e a l . There a r e t h r e e i s s u e s b e f o r e t h i s Court on a p p e a l : (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t judge err i n awarding c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r ? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t judge err i n awarding t o a p p e l l a n t c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e purpose of b r i n g i n g t h i s a p p e a l ? ( 3 ) Does t h e a p p e a l of t h i s c u s t o d y o r d e r c o n s t i t u t e a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l under Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ. P.? I n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l , Peggy S h e r r a r d B i e r must show a n a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e judge, must d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e is a c l e a r preponderance of e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s , and must overcome t h e presumption t h a t t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t is c o r r e c t . I n re The Marriage of J e n s e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 597 P.2d 733, 734, 36 St.Rep. 1259, 1261. I n reviewing t h e D i s t r i c t r e v i e w i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c u s t o d y o r d e r , t h i s Court need o n l y l o o k to t h e r e c o r d to see i f t h e f a c t o r s set f o r t h i n sec- t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, were c o n s i d e r e d , and t h e n must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e s e c r i t e r i a . Markegard v. Markegard (1980 ) , Mont . , 616 Custody must be determined i n accordance with 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 , with t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g : "(1) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t or p a r e n t s a s t o h i s custody; " ( 2 ) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d a s to h i s c u s t o d i a n ; " ( 3 ) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e c h i l d w i t h h i s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s , h i s s i b l i n g s , and any o t h e r person who may s i g n i f i - c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t ; " ( 4 ) t h e c h i l d ' s adjustment t o h i s home, s c h o o l , and community; and " ( 5 ) t h e mental and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved. " S e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. Both p a r e n t s d e s i r e d custody of t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t t h e r e were problems i n h e r e n t i n e i t h e r p a r e n t ' s having custody. The r e l e v a n t evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t Peggy was a good wife and mother u n t i l t h e t i m e of h e r s e p a r a t i o n from Leslie. A month b e f o r e t h e s e p a r a t i o n , Richard B i e r , Peggy's brother-in-law, n e g l i g e n t l y s h o t and k i l l e d Peggy's sister. Peggy became e m o t i o n a l l y u p s e t a t t h a t t i m e and s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , she and L e s l i e s e p a r a t e d . Leslie moved o u t of t h e i r t r a i l e r house but moved back i n when Peggy and t h e c h i l d r e n moved i n w i t h Richard B i e r and h i s t h r e e c h i l d r e n . Apparently Leslie a t l e a s t acquiesced to h e r l i v i n g w i t h B i e r , even h e l p i n g h e r move. A f t e r t h e f i r s t move, Peggy moved back and f o r t h c o n s t a n t l y , b r i n g i n g t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h her; t h e record shows some t e n t r i p s between t h e t w o homes during a n 18-month p e r i o d . The testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t Peggy's moves back i n w i t h Leslie r e s u l t e d from h e r anger a t B i e r , o r from h e r d i s t r e s s a t c a r i n g f o r f i v e c h i l d r e n . B i e r and Peggy f o u g h t f r e q u e n t l y and h e b e a t h e r up, c a u s i n g h e r t o go to t h e county a t t o r n e y . B i e r developed a d r i n k i n g problem a£ ter h i s homicide c o n v i c t i o n . The e v i d e n c e a l s o i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e B i e r c h i l d r e n and t h e S h e r r a r d c h i l d r e n d i d n o t g e t along very w e l l . A f t e r t h e marriage, Peggy remained i n t h e home w i t h B i e r and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p a p p a r e n t l y s t a b i l i z e d . Testimony from w i t n e s s e s who v i s i t e d t h e home af t e r B i e r began s e r v i n g h i s sen- t e n c e a t Deer Lodge ( s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e ) i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were well-cared f o r and t h a t t h e house was c l e a n . Peggy and t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n were l i v i n g on w e l f a r e . The testimony of t h e respondent shows t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n have a good r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r f a t h e r and t h a t he can pro- v i d e a s t a b l e home f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he is a deaf mute. The c h i l d r e n have s p e n t a g r e a t d e a l of t i m e w i t h t h e i r p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s and a p p a r e n t l y have a good r e l a - t i o n s h i p w i t h them. Respondent e a r n s a good income, is employed a s a mechanic, and has a t r a i l e r i n which he and t h e c h i l d r e n can r e s i d e . The p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s t e s t i f i e d to t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t o a s s i s t respondent i n r a i s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n . The f i n d i n g s of t h e District Court i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t is - n o t an u n f i t mother. However, t h e judge d i d f i n d t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n would be b e s t served by p l a c i n g t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r . H i s f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had a b e t t e r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r , and t h a t because t h e respondent appeared t o be a more s t a b l e person, t h e environment a t h i s home would be more s u i t a b l e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . H e found t h a t d e s p i t e Peggy's adequate c a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r obvious love f o r h e r , t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n of Richard B i e r i n t o t h e environment caused an i n t o l e r a b l e u n s e t t l i n g of t h e s i t u a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t contends t h a t because t h e judge found h e r t o be a f i t mother, s h e is t h e p r o p e r c u s t o d i a n f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . I n making such an argument, a p p e l l a n t is a s k i n g t h i s Court t o i g n o r e t h e d i c t a t e s of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n p a s s i n g s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. That s e c t i o n demands t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e t e r m i n e custody i n accordance w i t h t h e best i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . F i t n e s s of a p a r e n t is o n l y one f a c t o r to be c o n s i d e r e d . S e e s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. A p p e l l a n t also claims e r r o r i n t h e f a i l u r e of t h e judge to make a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e mother is t h e p r e f e r r e d p a r e n t of a minor c h i l d . Although t h i s " t e n d e r y e a r s presumption" h a s been con- s i d e r e d by d i s t r i c t judges i n t h e p a s t , t h e presumption was n e v e r c o n s i d e r e d c o n c l u s i v e ; each case was c o n s i d e r e d on its own f a c t s . S e e I n re Marriage of Tweeten ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 404, 409, 563 P.2d 1141, 1144. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s Court r e c e n t l y r u l e d i n I n re t h e Marriage of Markegard, s u p r a , Mont. a t , 616 P.2d a t 325, 37 St.Rep. a t 1541, t h a t t h e " t e n d e r y e a r s presumptiont1 s h o u l d no l o n g e r be c o n s i d e r e d a t a l l i n t h i s state i n l i g h t of t h e enactment of t h e Uniform Marriage and Divorce A c t . W e o v e r r u l e d Tweeten i n t h e Markegard case i n so f a r as Tweeten sup- p o r t e d t h e " t e n d e r y e a r s presumption." The d i s t r i c t judge h e r e was correct i n n o t making a f i n d i n g as to t h e p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e mother. The o l d e r S h e r r a r d c h i l d , J a s o n , aged 5, was asked by t h e judge about h i s p r e f e r e n c e i n custody. H e responded, "I want t o l i v e w i t h my m o m m i e . " The 2% y e a r o l d c h i l d w a s n o t i n t e r v i e w e d . A p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s is a n o t h e r example showing t h a t t h e judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t awarding c u s t o d y to Peggy. W e d i s a g r e e . Montana l a w does n o t r e q u i r e t h e d i s t r i c t judge to award c u s t o d y based on a c h i l d ' s p r e f e r e n c e . Again, t h i s is merely one f a c t o r to be c o n s i d e r e d . S e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA. See also I n re Marriage of Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 61, 580 P.2d 439, 444, 35 St.Rep. 700, 706. The amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t N o . 6 sets o u t J a s o n ' s p r e f e r e n c e to be w i t h h i s mother, and l a t e r f i n d i n g s e x p r e s s t h e j u d g e ' s r e a s o n s f o r d i s r e g a r d i n g t h a t p r e f e r e n c e . The d i s t r i c t judge c l e a r l y followed t h e d i c t a t e s of Montana l a w i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d r e n . Kramer, s u p r a ; see also Tweeten, s u p r a , 172 Mont. a t 408, 563 P.2d a t 1143. A p p e l l a n t also a s k s t h i s Court to f i n d an abuse of d i s c r e - t i o n i n t h e judge's f a i l u r e t o o r d e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l tests f o r Peggy and J a s o n and r e q u i r i n g r e s p o n d e n t to pay f o r them. The d e c r e e e n t e r e d i n J a n u a r y 1978, l e f t t h e permanent c u s t o d y d e c i - s i o n pending u n t i l Leslie, J a s o n , and Peggy r e c e i v e d e v a l u a t i o n s . A t t h e h e a r i n g i n May 1979, r e s u l t s of Leslie's tests were a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e , b u t Peggy and J a s o n had n o t had tests done because Peggy s a i d t h a t s h e could n o t af f o r d it. The judge made h i s c u s t o d y d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t o r d e r i n g t h e tests to be done. S e c t i o n 40-4-214 ( 2 ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s : " ( 2 ) The c o u r t may s e e k t h e a d v i c e of pro- f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l , whether or n o t employed by t h e c o u r t on a r e g u l a r b a s i s . The a d v i c e g i v e n s h a l e i n w r i i n and made a v a ' l a b l e bx t h e c o u r h & counsef u3on r e q u e s t . Eounsel a y exa- mine as a w i t n e s s any p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l c o n s u l t e d by t h e c o u r t . " I n S c h i e l e v. Sager ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 533, 538-39, 571 P.2d 1142, 1146, we d i s c u s s e d t h i s s t a t u t e , n o t i n g t h a t it d i c - tates a n e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n d e t e r - mining whether f i n d i n g s of p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l a r e n e c e s s a r y t o r e s o l v i n g c u s t o d y d i s p u t e s . Here, t h e j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s i n d i - cate t h a t he d i d n o t f i n d it n e c e s s a r y t o o r d e r t h e tests i n May 1979, and a p p e l l a n t h a s n o t demonstrated t h a t such a d e t e r - m i n a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , a r e v i e w of t h e t r a n s c r i p t i n d i c a t e s an abundance of 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 on which t h e judge could base h i s c u s t o d y d e c i s i o n w i t h o u t r e l y i n g on p r o f e s s i o n a l testimony. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e judge abused h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n s i d e r i n g e v i d e n c e concerning Peggy's t h r e a t e n e d s u i c i d e a t t e m p t s . Finding of f a c t N o . 26 p r o v i d e s : "Evidence w a s i n t r o d u c e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t P e t i t i o n e r t h r e a t e n e d to c o m m i t s u i c i d e on t w o s e p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s . " A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h a t f i n d i n g . The record shows con£ l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e on t h i s p o i n t , from which t h e judge as t h e t r i e r of f a c t is e n t i t l e d to draw h i s own c o n c l u s i o n s . J e n s e n , s u p r a , Mont. a t , 597 P.2d a t 735, 36 St.Rep. a t 1262. Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t judge. The judge i n t h i s case made e x t e n s i v e f i n d i n g s , r e f l e c t i n g t h e r e l e v a n t criteria i n d e t e r m i n i n g 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 r e n . H i s o r d e r g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y t o Leslie S h e r r a r d is af f irmed. I n October, 1979, a p p e l l a n t moved t h e District Court to award a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s to a p p e l l a n t f o r t h e purpose of b r i n g i n g t h i s a p p e a l . A t t h a t t i m e Judge M c P h i l l i p s o r d e r e d r e s p o n d e n t to pay $2,500 to a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y f o r c o s t s and f e e s , p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA: "Costs -- a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . The c o u r t from t i m e - t o t i m e , after considering t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r - ces of both p a r t i e s , may o r d e r a p a r t y to pay a r e a s o n a b l e amount f o r t h e cost to t h e o t h e r p a r t y of m a i n t a i n i n g o r defending any proceeding u n d e r c h a p t e r s 1 and 4 of t h i s t i t l e and f o r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , i n c l u d i n g sums f o r l e g a l ser- v i c e s rendered and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r to t h e commencement of t h e proceeding or a f t e r e n t r y of judgment . . ." Respondent c r o s s - a p p e a l s from t h a t o r d e r , c i t i n g I n re t h e Marriage of B l i s s , ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 609 P.2d 1209, 37 St.Rep. 708. I n t h a t case we s t a t e d t h a t " [ s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA] c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t under normal c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a n o r d e r f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s w i l l be p e r m i t t e d o n l y a f t e r counsel f o r t h e bene- f i t t e d p a r t y h a s completed h i s s e r v i c e s . B l i s s , s u p r a , Mont. a t , 609 P.2d a t 1212, 37 St.Rep. a t 711. W e noted i n B l i s s t h a t an award of a t t o r n e y f e e s p r i o r to a p p e a l was normally too s p e c u l a t i v e . An award of a t t o r n e y f e e s , l i k e any o t h e r award, must be based on competent e v i d e n c e . P h e n n i c i e v. P h e n n i c i e , ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 604 P.2d 787, 791, 36 St.Rep. 2378, 2383. A showing of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of a t t o r n e y f e e s must be made by means of a h e a r i n g a l l o w i n g f o r oral testimony, t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x h i b i t s , and a n o p p o r t u n i t y to cross-examine. Aanenson v. Aanenson, ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont . , 593 P.2d 446, 450, 36 St.Rep. 1525, 1529. W r i t t e n f i n d i n g s are r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h both t h e p a r t y ' s n e c e s s i t y f o r payment from t h e opposing p a r t y and t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e f e e s . Gohner v. Gohner, ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 609 P.2d 288, 289-290, 37 St.Rep. 613, 615. The h e a r i n g i n t h e case now b e f o r e us l a c k e d t h e d e f i n i t e n e s s t h a t o u r l a w r e q u i r e s . A t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion f o r f e e s and c o s t s , a p p e l l a n t ' s a t t o r n e y had not y e t rendered s e r v i c e s i n b r i n g i n g t h i s a p p e a l . There w a s nothing b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o i n d i c a t e what t h e a t t o r n e y ' s s p e c i f i c c o s t s and c h a r g e s would b e , o r even how much t i m e would be r e q u i r e d to write t h e b r i e f s . The t r i a l judge r u l e d on t h e motion from t h e bench. H e made no w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s as to t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e a t t o r n e y f e e s and t r a n s c r i p t c o s t s sought by a p p e l l a n t . A p p e l l a n t made no showing (and t h e judge e n t e r e d no f i n d i n g ) of c i r c u m s t a n c e s n e c e s s i t a t i n g a p r o s p e c t i v e award of f e e s and costs. C e r t a i n criteria must be m e t b e f o r e a p p e a l costs and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n a d i s s o l u t i o n c a s e are awarded d u r i n g t h e pen- dency of t h e a p p e a l . The p a r t y s e e k i n g to have its costs and f e e s p a i d by t h e opposing p a r t y must show t h e f i n a n c i a l n e c e s s i t y f o r such a payment, and e v i d e n c e must be p r e s e n t e d to prove t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of t h e costs and f e e s . There must also be a showing of c i r c u m s t a n c e s which w a r r a n t t h e assessment of costs and a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l b e f o r e t h e y are a c t u a l l y i n c u r r e d or r e n d e r e d . F i n a l l y , t h e judge must p r e p a r e w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s t o s u p p o r t h i s or h e r r u l i n g on t h e motion f o r c o s t s and f e e s . Because t h e p r o p e r procedure w a s n o t followed i n t h i s case, and no showing was made to w a r r a n t a p r i o r award of f e e s and c o s t s , w e v a c a t e t h a t award and remand t h i s cause to t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . I f , on remand, t h e d i s t r i c t judge d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t is e n t i t l e d to f e e s and costs p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 40-4-110, MCA, he can make an award based on t h e r e a s o n a b l e v a l u e o f t h e s e r v i c e s which now have been r e n d e r e d . Respondent n e x t a s k s t h i s Court t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t a p p e l l a n t h a s brought a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t to Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P., and t o assess damages. W e d e c l i n e t o do t h i s . W e r e c e n t l y d i s c u s s e d t h e problem of f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l s i n c u s t o d y cases i n B i l l i n g s v. B i l l i n g s (1980 ), Mont. , 616 P.2d 1104, 1106, 37 St.Rep. 1704, 1706, n o t i n g t h e r e t h a t a d v e r s a r y p r o c e e d i n g s are n o t conducive to t h e speedy and f a i r r e s o l u t i o n of c u s t o d y cases. I n B i l l i n g s , s u p r a , w e found a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l , because it appeared t h a t Leona B i l l i n g s moved f o r a change of venue o n l y t o d e l a y an u l t i m a t e h e a r i n g on t h e merits of t h e case. Such a s i t u a t i o n is n o t p r e s e n t e d h e r e . A p p e l l a n t does not a p p e a r t o be m o t i v a t e d by a d e s i r e to n e e d l e s s l y t i e up t h e l i t i g a t i o n p r o c e s s . Although t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d to t h i s Court allowed a p p e l l a n t l i t t l e hope of r e v e r s a l of t h e c u s t o d y o r d e r on a p p e a l , w e are mindful t h a t a p a r e n t who loses a c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l p u r s u e any p o s s i b l e means of r e g a i n i n g h i s or h e r c h i l d r e n . I n an area of t h e law so emotionally-charged as t h i s , we w i l l f i n d a f r i v o l o u s a p p e a l i n o n l y t h e most l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The c u s t o d y o r d e r is a f f i r m e d and t h e cause is remanded f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s , i n accordance w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: n ' , I . M r . J u e i c e F r e d J. Weber, s i t t i n g on t h e p a n e l i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e J o h n C. H a r r i s o n