Title: MARRIAGE OF OBERGFELL

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 85-03 I N THE SUPREI4E COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 I N RE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY J O OBERGFELL, P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t , and PAUL DOUGLAS OBERGFELL, R e s p o n d e n t and R e s p o n d e n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Seventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and for the C o u n t y of R i c h l a n d , T h e H o n o r a b l e R. C. M c D o n o u g h , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : U t i c k , G r o s f i e l d & U d a ; Joan U d a , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : Peter 0. M a l t e s e , Sidney, M o n t a n a -- - -- -- S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : June 2 8 , 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : S e p t e m b e r 1 8 , 1 9 8 5 ---- C l e r k Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by the wife from an order of custody and division of marital property made by the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Richland County, the Honor- able R. C. McDonough presiding. We affirm. Mary Jo and Paul Obergfell were married in 1973. Two children were born of the marriage, namely Ryan and Randall who were ten years of age and eight years of age, respective- ly, at the time of the hearing. In 1980, after a period of separation and an unsuccess- ful reconciliation attempt, Mrs. Obergfell left the family home in Sidney, Montana, and moved to Billings, Montana, with Ryan and Randal 1. Shortly after her move to Billings, Mrs. Obergfell filed her petition for dissolution of marriage in Richland County. While is Billings, Mrs. Obergfell completed her degree in special education and in 1984 accepted a posi- tion as a special education instructor at the Boulder River School and Hospital in Boulder, Montana. The boys have lived continuously with Mrs. Obergfell during the school year and with their father during the summer months since the couple permanently separated in 1980. Paul Obergfell continues to live in the Sidney area and has been employed by Montana-Dakota Utilities for the past 11 years. His current residence is a mobile home which is located 15 miles southeast of Sidney on his father's farm. Mrs. Obergfell's petition for dissolution of marriage requested that she be awarded custody of the two minor chil- dren; that Paul pay her reasonable attorney's fees; and that the parties' personal property be equitably divided. In his response, Mr. Obergfell requested that he be awarded custody of the two minor children; that each party bear their own a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s ; and t h a t t h e personal p r o p e r t y of t h e p a r t i e s be e q u i t a b l y divided. The Richland County D i s t r i c t Court, a f t e r a h e a r i n g held September 1 3 , 1984, d i s s o l v e d t h e marriage o f t h e p a r t i e s and ordered i n p a r t t h e following: 1. The p a r e n t s s h a l l have j o i n t custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n . 2. The r e s i d e n c e o f each c h i l d s h a l l be w i t h t h e mother u n t i l t h e end o f t h e school y e a r d u r i n g which t h a t c h i l d t u r n s 12 y e a r s of age, a f t e r which t i m ~ , t h e c h i l d w i l l r e s i d e permanently w i t h t h e f a t h e r . 3. The f a t h e r s h a l l pay c h i l d support i n t h e amount o f $175 p e r month p e r c h i l d while t h e c h i l d r e n r e s i d e w i t h t h e mother. 4 . The f a t h e r s h a l l have custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e summer school v a c a t i o n months while t h e c h i l d r e n a r e s t i l l r e s i d i n g w i t h t h e mother, s u b j e c t t o t h e mother's r i g h t t o have t h e c h i l d r e n f o r a 10-day p e r i o d d u r i n g such summer months. 5. The mother s h a l l have one-month summer v i s i t a t i o n with t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e residence o f t h e c h i l d r e n has been t r a n s f e r r e d permanently t o t h e f a t h e r . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c h i l d r e n s h a l l a l t e r n a t e h o l i d a y s w i t h t h e p a r e n t s . 6 . The m a r i t a l e s t a t e c o n s i s t s s o l e l y o f personal p r o p e r t y which has been e q u i t a b l y divided. 7. That each p a r t y i s t o pay h i s o r h e r own l e g a l f e e s , and t h e f a t h e r i s t o pay t h e c h i l d r e n ' s a t t o r n e y . I n l i g h t o f t h e above D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r , M r s . Obergfell p r e s e n t s t h e following i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n changing physical custody o f each o f t h e minor c h i l d r e n o f t h e p a r t i e s from t h e mother t o t h e f a t h e r when each c h i l d reaches t h e age o f 12 y e a r s and i n s e v e r e l y l i m i t i n g t h e mother's v i s i t a t i o n without f i n d i n g harm t o t h e c h i l d r e n from t h e v i s i t a t i o n ? 2. Whether t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e supported by t h e evidence? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award M r s . Obergfell h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s i n c u r r e d i n t h i s m a t t e r ? I n addressing t h e f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . O b e r g f e l l , b o t h p a r t i e s recognize i n t h e i r b r i e f s t h e s t a n d a r d f o r review o f c h i l d custody c a s e s a s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s Court. In B i e r v. Sherrard (Mont. 19811, 623 P.2d 550, 551, 38 St.Rep. 158, 159, w e s t a t e d : I n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l , [ a p p e l l a n t ] must show an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e judge, must demonstrate t h a t t h e r e is a c l e a r preponderance o f evidence a g a i n s t t h e f i n d i n g s , and must overcome t h e presump- t i o n t h a t t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t is c o r r e c t . I n reviewing t h e District C o u r t ' s custody o r d e r , t h i s Court need only look t o t h e record t o see i f t h e f a c t o r s set f o r t h i n S 40-4-212, MCA, w e r e considered and then must determine whether 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 t o t h e s e c r i t e r i a . ( C i t a t i o n s omitted.) S e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, provides t h e s t a n d a r d t h e D i s - t r i c t Court must follow i n making a custody determination: The c o u r t s h a l l determine t h e custody i n accordance with t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s including: (1) t h e wishes o f t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s a s t o h i s custody; (2) t h e wishes o f t h e c h i l d a s t o h i s custodian; (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 o f 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, school, and community; and (5) t h e mental and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o f a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved. I n i t i a l l y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t recogn.ized t h a t s e v e r a l o f t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d by S 40-4-212, MCA, e q u a l l y a p p l i e d t o b o t h p a r t i e s i n determining custody. F i r s t , t h e t r i a l judge noted t h a t both p a r e n t s d e s i r e custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t b o t h p a r e n t s a r e p h y s i c a l l y and mentally a b l e t o be c u s t o d i a n s of t h e c h i l d r e n . In a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l judge found t h e c h i l d r e n had a d j u s t e d t o t h e i r home, school and community i n Boulder d u r i n g t h e school y e a r and t h e i r home and community i n Sidney d u r i n g t h e summer months. But, t h e t r i a l judge a l s o recognized t h a t s e v e r a l o f t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d by S 40-4-212 weighed h e a v i l y i n f a v o r o f t h e f a t h e r i n determining custody. F i r s t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t found a s t r o n g p r e f e r e n c e o f each c h i l d was t o l i v e with t h e i r f a t h e r i n Sidney on t h e farm. The f i n d i n g s show t h a t both boys enjoy and d e s i r e t h e farm l i f e s t y l e and t h a t it i s t h e i r t r u e wish t o l i v e w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r . Second, t h e t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t while t h e boys' i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p and i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h both p a r t i e s was normal and h e a l t h y , t h e boys d i d e x p r e s s some n e g a t i v e f e e l - i n g s about t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r mother and d e s i r e d n o t t o l i v e w i t h h e r i n Boulder. Also, t h e c o u r t considered 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 o f t h e boys w i t h o t h e r people 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 . The record i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l l f o u r o f t h e boys' grandparents l i v e i n t h e Sidney a r e a , along with a s s o r t e d maternal and p a t e r n a l cousins, a u n t s and uncles. This Court recognizes t h a t i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e f i n d i n g s i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court and t h e g u i d e l i n e s l i s t e d by S 40-4-212, MCA, t h e r e a r e f a c t o r s t h a t p o i n t favorably toward t h e mother i n determining custody o f t h e boys. Howev- e r , a s t h i s Court explained i n Gilmore v. Gilmore (1975), 1 6 6 Mont. 4 7 , 51, 530 P.2d 480, 482: The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f d e c i d i n g custody is a d e l i c a t e one which i s lodged w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The judge h e a r i n g o r a l testimony i n such a controversy h a s a s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining t h e same, and h i s d e c i s i o n ought n o t t o be d i s t u r b e d except on a c l e a r showing of abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . [ C i t i n g cases. ] Therefore, we hold t h a t t h e District Court adequately consid- ered t h e g u i d e l i n e s l i s t e d i n 5 40-4-212, and d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding t h e f a t h e r custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e y reach 12 y e a r s o f age. S i m i l a r l y , w e hold t h a t t h e District Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n when determining t h e mother's v i s i t a t i o n schedule. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s determination o f v i s i t a t i o n was n o t p u n i t i v e i n n a t u r e , a s t h e mother s u g g e s t s , b u t r a t h e r focused upon what t h e t r i a l c o u r t considered t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n . The second i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . Obergfell i s whether t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions o f law o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court a r e supported by t h e eviden.ce. I n response t o t h i s i s s u e , we note t h i s Court w i l l n o t set a s i d e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t u n l e s s shown t o be c l e a r l y erroneous. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., MCA, s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : Findings o f f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y erroneous, and due regard s h a l l be given t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses. Furthermore, f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a r e n o t c l e a r l y erroneous i f supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence: This C o u r t ' s f u n c t i o n . . . i s n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e its judgment i n p l a c e o f t h e trier o f f a c t s b u t r a t h e r it is "confined t o determine whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support" t h e find- i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law. ( C i t a t i o n s omitted.) Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t i n t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d , it i s t h e d u t y and function o f t h e t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e such c o n f l i c t s . H i s f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on appeal where t h e y a r e based on s u b s t a n t i a l though c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. ( C i t a t i o n s Omitted. ) Olson v. Westfork P r o p e r t i e s , Inc. (1976), 171 Mont. 154, 557 W e conclude t h a t t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence on t h e r e c o r d , a s explained under i s s u e number one t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions o f law o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Therefore, w e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court ' s determina- t i o n o f custody and v i s i t a t i o n . The f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by M r s . O b e r g f e l l i s whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o award h e r a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . The awarding o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a r e governed by S 40-4-110, MCA, which s t a t e s : The c o u r t from t i m e t o t i m e , a f t e r con- s i d e r i n g t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f both p a r t i e s , may o r d e r a p a r t y t o pay a reasonable amount f o r t h e c o s t t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y o f maintaining o r defending any proceedings under c h a p t e r s 1 and 4 o f 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 s e r v i c e s ren- dered and c o s t s i n c u r r e d p r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t h e proceeding o r a f t e r e n t r y o f judgment. The c o u r t may o r d e r t h a t t h e amount be paid d i r e c t l y t o t h e a t t o r n e y , who may e n f o r c e t h e o r d e r i n h i s name. This Court has i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e awarding o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s under t h i s s t a t u t e i s c l e a r l y permissive. See I n R e t h e Marriage of Carlson (Mont. 19841, 693 P.2d 496, 4 1 St.Rep. 2419. Furthermore, t h e record i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t was w e l l appraised o f t h e f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s o f b o t h p a r t i e s . Therefore, w e f i n d no abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d i r e c t i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o pay t h e i r own a t t o r - ney's f e e s . The judgment o f t h e District Court is affirmed. W e concur: