Title: WILSON v WILSON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14316 IN THE SUPRFME CXUHT OF THE STATE O F ' MONTANA 1978 IXlRLENE L . W I L S m , Petitioner and Appellant, -vs- WILLIAM A . WILSON, Respondent and Respondent. A p - 1 from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Homrable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appllant: Schulz, Davis & Warren, Dillon, Mntana Thanas Dooling, Dillon, b5c)ntar-m For Respondent: W. G. G i l b e r t 1 1 1 , Dillon, I%ntana Suhnitted on briefs: October 30, 1978 Decided: FEF 37!3 - ? Filed : ke: ?-E- M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This appeal i s brought by Darlene Wilson from a judg- ment of t h e District Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Beaverhead, i n which t h e c o u r t granted William Wilson, her former husband, custody of t h e i r t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n . M r s . Wilson (now Parks) contends t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n two r e s p e c t s and its custody decree should be reversed and custody granted t o her. F i r s t she argues t h e D i s t r i c t Court gave t o o much weight i n its custody f i n d i n g s t o h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p with one ~ i c h a r d Parks during t h e period a f t e r her s e p a r a t i o n from her husband. Second she contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by con- ducting a p r i v a t e off-record interview i n chambers with her two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n , aged n i n e and t e n years, f o r t h e pur- pose of determining with which p a r e n t they p r e f e r r e d t o l i v e . The i s s u e s f o r t h i s Court's determination are: 1. Does a D i s t r i c t Court abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n a c h i l d custody c a s e when it considers a p a r e n t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p and conduct with another person i n determining t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e children? 2. It i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r a D i s t r i c t Court t o conduct a n off-record interview with t h e c h i l d r e n of a dissolved marriage t o determine with which p a r e n t they would p r e f e r t o l i v e ? W i l l i a m and Darlene Wilson w e r e married a t B i l l i n g s , Montana, i n 1963. They had t h r e e c h i l d r e n born i n 1967, 1968 and 1972. Darlene Wilson presented her p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court on September 27, 1977, a l l e g i n g t h a t her marriage with respondent was i r r e t r i e v a b l y broken and futher alleging t h a t it was i n the best i n t e r e s t of t h e three minor children t o be i n her custody. O n Octo- ber 4 , 1977, the D i s t r i c t Court granted p e t i t i o n e r temporary custody of the children and ordered respondent t o pay $75 per c h i l d per month f o r the support of t h e p a r t i e s ' children. The D i s t r i c t Court ordered t h e p a r t i e s t o attend con- c i l i a t i o n conferences with l o c a l clergy but these conferences proved unsuccessful. O n February 1 4 , 1978, t h e court granted a dissolution and ordered a hearing on child custody, child support and property division. Prior t o t h e custody hearing respondent f i l e d a counterclaim i n which he alleged t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor children would be served i f he were granted custody. A t the hearing the d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g without a jury, took testimony on t h e l i f e s t y l e s of respondent and p e t i t i o n e r and concluded t h a t respondent was b e t t e r suited t o r a i s e the children than was p e t i t i o n e r . I n a "Memo of t h e Court" dated March 2 4 , 1978, the judge summarized h i s view of the testimony r e l a t i n g t o M r s . Wilson's relationship with Parks and how t h a t relationship affected her a b i l i t y t o properly r a i s e her children: "We have r e c i t e d t h e foregoing t o show t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f has been trapped i n a mad infatuation over a comparative male stranger, establishing intimate r e l a t i o n s with him, going so f a r a s t o scandalize her children of tender years by per- mitting her daughter t o see them i n bed together, breaking up her home and the home of her children, when a t the o u t s e t of her philandering she con- fessed her love f o r t h e father of her children. " I n short, M r s . Wilson is not a f i t and proper person t o e n t r u s t t h r e e innocent children t o her custody, care and control. " I n c o n t r a s t the judge concluded t h a t the children's needs f o r proper upbringing would be met i f custody were granted t o t h e i r father: "These children need a good moral atmosphere and surroundings t o mature i n . A l l of these things they w i l l have i n t h e home of t h e i r f a t h e r . . ." I n i t s findings and conclusions dated March 2 4 , 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a t e d t h a t t h e children were disturbed by t h e i r mother's relationship with Parks and t h a t t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s would be served by granting custody t o t h e i r f a t h e r . The court a l s o noted the r e s u l t s of its in-chambers interview with t h e two o l d e s t children, t h a t they preferred t o l i v e with t h e i r father. O n appeal petitioner contends t h e court abused i t s dis- c r e t i o n by placing emphasis on t h e moral atmosphere i n her home, especially the matter of her relationship with Parks. She argues t h a t the c o u r t ' s finding t h a t she is not a " f i t " parent i s not supported by competent evidence, but rather only by an "indiscretion" on her p a r t which " i n a s t r i c t l y r e l i g i o u s sense constitutes a s i n . . . " Petitioner c i t e s Love v. Love (1975), 1 6 6 Mont. 303, 533 P.2d 280, t o support her argument t h a t t h e mother should be given some degree of preference and t h e need t o show not only t h a t the mother i s u n f i t but a l s o t h a t the f a t h e r is f i t t o care f o r the children. This contention, however, must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t of two principles which t h i s Court has firmly established. F i r s t , t h i s Court does not s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of the D i s t r i c t Court. The paramount consideration i n a c h i l d custody case i s the welfare of the children. The D i s t r i c t Court has a much b e t t e r opportunity than t h i s Court t o make t h e determination of how the children's welfare w i l l be b e s t served and thus the custody decision is l e f t largely t o t h a t c o u r t ' s discretion. Unless t h e D i s t r i c t Court has c l e a r l y abused i t s discretion, i t s custody decision w i l l not be overruled. I n r e Marriage of Brown (1978) , Mont. , 587 ~ , 2 d 361, 364, 35 St.Rep. 1733, 1738. Second, t h e presumption i n favor of g r a n t i n g custody t o t h e mother is never conclusive. Instead "each c h i l d custody case w i l l be decided on i t s own f a c t s r a t h e r than by t h e use of 'control- l i n g o r conclusive presumption.'" I n re Marriage of Tweeten (1977) I Mont. , 563 P.2d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 4 , 34 St.Rep. 337, 341. The maternal preference presumption s t i l l e x i s t s , b u t i t s use i s l i m i t e d t o those cases i n which t h e f a t h e r has n o t overcome it by a preponderance of evidence showing him t o be t h e more f i t parent t o have custody. I n re Mar- r i a g e of I s l e r (1977), - Mont. , 566 P.2d 55, 58, 34 St.Rep. 545, 548. To overcome t h e presumption t h e f a t h e r need n o t show t h a t t h e mother is u n f i t b u t only t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n would be b e t t e r o f f with him. I n re Marriage of Brown , Mont. a t , 587 P.2d a t 366, 35 St.Rep. a t 1739; I n re Marriage of Isler, Mont. a t , 566 P.2d a t 58, 34 St.Rep. a t 548. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Love holds otherwise, it is no longer followed. I n t h i s case t h e record shows s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Wilson c h i l - dren would b e b e t t e r off with t h e i r f a t h e r . Section 48-332, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-212 MCA, sets f o r t h f i v e c r i t e r i a upon which t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s d i r e c t e d t o make t h e determination of what c u s t o d i a l arrangement w i l l be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e children. These are: t h e wishes of t h e p a r e n t s a s t o custody; t h e wishes of t h e children; t h e c h i l d r e n ' s 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 with t h e i r p a r e n t s , with each o t h e r , and with o t h e r s who may s i g n i - f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s ; t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a d j u s t - ment t o home, school and community; and, t h e mental and physical h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved. From t h e evidence presented, it i s c l e a r t h a t both parents wish t o have custody of t h e t h r e e children. The two older c h i l d r e n t o l d t h e d i s t r i c t judge t h a t they would p r e f e r t o l i v e with t h e i r f a t h e r . There was testimony from t h e f a t h e r t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e n o t w i l l i n g t o r e t u r n t o t h e i r mother's trailer a f t e r weekend v i s i t s with him. The c o u r t a l s o heard testimony concerning t h e home l i f e t o which t h e children w e r e exposed during Darlene Wilson's temporary custody. The p a r t i e s argue about t h e e f f e c t s on t h e children of Darlene's permitting Richard Parks t o spend n i g h t s with her before they w e r e married. The District Court attached some significance t o t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p as an i n d i c a t i o n of Darlene's f i t n e s s a s a parent. But t h e evi- dence does n o t s t o p with t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . The c o u r t took testimony on W i l l i a m Wilson's a b i l i t i e s t o care f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and h i s propensities t o provide them with a proper upbringing. W i l l i a m showed evidence of steady monthly income and adequate housing. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s job would n o t prevent him from keeping h i s youngest son with him during t h e day and t h a t t h e r e were o f t e n o t h e r children around a t t h e farms where he d e l i v e r s feed and f e r t i l i z e r . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had experience i n preparing meals f o r t h e children and g e t t i n g them o f f t o school before t h e separation when h i s wife had t o leave e a r l y i n t h e morning f o r work. F i n a l l y , t h e c o u r t heard testimony of h i s regular church attendance and h i s willingness t o assist t h e children i n t h e i r moral and s p i r i t u a l development. The children w i l l have t o spend some t i m e i n day c a r e a t t h e end of each school day i f t h e i r f a t h e r has custody, which, from t h e record, would apparently n o t be necessary i f they stayed with t h e i r mother. I n balance, t h e c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e f a t h e r is b e t t e r suited t o provide f o r the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the children. while a relationship such a s Darlene Wilson had with ~ i c h a r d Parks may not i n i t s e l f be adequate t o support a finding of her unfitness a s a parent, especially i n a change of custody proceeding, Foss v. Leifer (1976), 170 Mont. 97, 550 P.2d 1309, the D i s t r i c t Court should not be directed t o ignore a parent's a c t i v i t i e s i n the home. In any event, the scope of t h i s review remains limited and the issue is not whether the evidence shows the mother t o be u n f i t but only whether the evidence supports a conclusion t h a t the chil- dren's welfare would be b e s t served by granting custody t o t h e f a t h e r . In t h i s case it does. There is no showing by p e t i t i o n e r t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court manifestly abused its discretion by granting custody t o t h e f a t h e r , although it may not have been necessary t o characterize Darlene Wilson a s an u n f i t parent. P e t i t i o n e r ' s second i s s u e deals with the off-record interview which t h e judge held with the two o l d e s t Wilson children. A t t h e request of William Wilson during t h e custody hearing, t h e d i s t r i c t judge interviewed the children i n chambers. They were accompanied by T e r r i Stanisich, a guidance counselor a t t h e i r school. N o record was made, and neither parent was represented a t t h i s meeting. A t a separate hearing before a d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t judge, ~ e r r i Stanisich t e s t i f i e d t h a t she brought the children i n t o t h e chambers where t h e judge conducted the interview. She said t h a t the judge f i r s t asked a general question about school and teachers, then asked the children which parent they preferred t o l i v e with. "So then he asked them which parent, I don't remember j u s t how he worded it, but which parent they would prefer t o l i v e with, and they answered, t h e i r father. Both of them, and they both were nodding t h e i r head when they s a i d it. " Following t h e interview, the ~ i s t r i c t Court entered a finding t h a t the children preferred t o l i v e with t h e i r f a t h e r . Section 48-334 (1) , R.C.M. 1947, now section 40-4-214 (1) MCA, provides t h a t the court "may interview t h e child i n chambers t o ascertain the c h i l d ' s wishes a s t o h i s custodian and a s t o v i s i t a t i o n " . It leaves t h e court discretion t o permit counsel t o be present. However, it a l s o mandates t h a t when a court does interview children i n chambers, it " s h a l l cause a record of t h e interview t o be made and t o be p a r t of the record i n the case." Whether the f a i l u r e t o make a record i n t h i s case requires a remand is the question presented here. The lack of both a record of the interview and a s p e c i f i c finding a s t o the children's preference - necessitated a remand i n In re Marriage of Brown, - Mont . a t , 587 P.2d a t 366, 35 St.Rep. a t 1739. See a l s o , In r e Marriage of Kramer (1978), Mont. , 580 P.2d 439, 4 4 4 , 35 St.Rep. 700, 706. The r a t i o n a l e of the Court i n Brown was t h a t without these things, it was impossible t o determine the basis f o r the D i s t r i c t Court's custody ruling: "Without the record of the interview and without s p e c i f i c findings a s t o the wishes of t h e children, counsel and t h i s Court do not know with any degree of c e r t a i n t y the b a s i s f o r the D i s t r i c t Court's conclusion on custody . " - Mont. a t , 587 P.2d a t 366, 35 St.Rep. a t 1739. While t h e practice of conducting off-record interviews i s not desirable f o r t h e reason given i n Brown, the lack of a record alone has not always required reversal. The p a r t i e s t o the custody proceeding may even s t i p u l a t e t h a t no record w i l l be made and provided t h e wishes of t h e children as t o custody a r e followed, a remand may not be necessary. Counts v. Chapman (1979), Mont. - 1 - P.2d , 36 St.Rep. 89, 93-94. I n t h e present case, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d make a finding a s t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s wishes and entered i t s decree according t o those wishes. The separate hearing i n which T e r r i S t a n i s i c h t e s t i f i e d provides a view of what happened during t h e interview, which supports t h e D i s t r i c t Court's findings. Thus, t h e p a r t i c u l a r problems with t h e lack of finding and record which required a remand i n Brown a r e n o t present here and i.t appears t h a t a remand f o r t h e purpose of an "on-record" interview would serve l i t t l e purpose. Under t h e circumstances of t h i s case, no remand is necessary. The decree of t h e D i s t r i c t Court granting custody t o W i l l i a m Wilson i s affirmed. / J u s t i c e W e concur: &a42 Chief j u s t i c e