Title: MARRIAGE OF OVERTON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

NO. 83-216 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF CYNTHIA LOUISE OVERTON, Petitioner and Appellant, -vs- RICHARD ORVILLE OVERTON, Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable John M. McCarvel, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: LaRue Smith, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent : Barry T. Olson, Great Falls, Montana -- Submitted on Brief: September 15, 1983 Decided: December '22, 1983 Filed: DEC 2 2 1983 5 7 ~ & , d u * f - Clerk Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by the wife, from an order of the District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Cascade County, providing for the daughter's surname be changed to the husband's surname, his name be placed on a birth certificate and specifically settling visitation rights for husband. Cynthia Louise (Miller)(Overton) and Richard Orville Overton were married on June 13, 1979. The court entered a decree of dissolution of their marriage, March 6, 1980. Wife was pregnant at the time of the dissolution, as a result of that marriage. She gave birth to a baby girl July 2, 1980, in Great Falls, Montana. At the time of the birth, she named the child Chantelle Winifred Miller. She had two other illegitimate children with surnames Miller and desired all of her children to have the same surname so as to prevent confusion and embarrassment. In July of 1982, respondent tried to obtain a birth certificate of his daughter, Chantelle, so as to enroll her in the Indian tribal rolls. The Cascade County Clerk and Recorder's Office informed him that the birth certificate did not name a father and further stated the child's name to be Chantelle Winifred Miller. Respondent then brought this action to have his daughter's surname changed to be the same as his, and to clarify his visitation rights. Following the submission of briefs and a hearing, the court ordered the child's surname changed to Overton; that respondent's name be placed as the father on the birth certificate; and that he be granted visitation rights with his daughter one weekend a month, on alternate holidays and six weeks during the summer. Appellant raises four issues on appeal: (1) Did the court err in its findings of fact regarding the visitation rights of the husband; (2) did the court err in not conducting a welfare investigation before granting husband visitation rights; (3) did the order to change the surname of the daughter violate Section 40-5-103, MCA, and Article 11, Section 4 of the Montana Constitution; and (4) was there sufficient evidence to prove it was in the best interest and welfare of the child to have her surname changed? This Court will not overturn findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. "We will not substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact, but rather will only consider whether substantial credible evidence supports the findings and conclusions. These findings will not be overturned by this Court unless there is a clear preponderance of the evidence against them. We will view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, recognizing that substantial evidence may be weak or conflicting with other evidence, yet still support the findings. Nicolai v. Nicolai (Mont. 1981), 631 P.2d 300, 303, 38 St.Rep. 1100, 1103. Cameron v. Cameron (1978), 179 Mont. 219, 587 P.2d 939. " Appellant contests the court's findings on the issue of visitation rights. A review of the evidence shows sufficient evidence to support the findings. We do not find the District Court clearly erroneous in its findings on the issue of visitation. Appellant contends the trial court erred when it first stated it would request a welfare investigation on respondent before granting visitation rights and then p r o c e e d t o make t h e o r d e r f o r v i s i t a t i o n w i t h o u t s a i d i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t may r e q u i r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i n t e r v i e w s and g a t h e r t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n as it deems n e c e s s a r y . Such review is w i t h i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . S e c t i o n 40-4-217, MCA presumes t h e n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t is e n t i t l e d t o r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s s o l o n g as it is i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . "To a s s u r e t h a t t h i s s t a n d a r d is complied w i t h , it is e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t examine a l l p e r t i n e n t and r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . ' ' J o n e s v. J o n e s (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 620 P.2d 850, 37 St.Rep. 1973. The c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l a n d made s u f f i c i e n t f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s t o s u p p o r t its o r d e r . T h e r e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t e r r by n o t c o n d u c t i n g a f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t n e x t c o n t e n d s t h e c o u r t v i o l a t e d S e c t i o n 40-6-103, MCA, and Article 11, S e c t i o n 4 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , by changing t h e c h i l d ' s surname. W e d i s a g r e e . I n Firman v. Firman (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 610 P.2d 178, 37 St.Rep. 888, t h i s C o u r t c o r r e c t l y found t h a t o t h e r t h a n t h e s t a t u t e s f o r name changes, S e c t i o n 27-31-101 e t s e q . , " t h e r e is no o t h e r s t a t u t e i n p o i n t . . . . " Firman, s u p r a , i n v o l v e d a d i s p u t e between a husband and w i f e o v e r t h e surname t o be used by t h e c h i l d r e n . The w i f e d e s i r e d t h e c h i l d r e n t o u s e t h e name of h e r new husband. T h i s C o u r t i n its r u l i n g d e t e r m i n e d t h e c h i l d r e n s h o u l d u s e t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r ' s surname, based upon 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 . " Firman, s u p r a (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 610 P.2d 178, 181, 37 St.Rep. 888, 891. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s t a t e n o t h i n g t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t husband h a s any p r e f e r e n c e o r n a t u r a l r i g h t t o have h i s d a u g h t e r bear h i s surname. The c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t d o e s n o t i n v o l v e t h e e q u a l i t y o f s e x e s i n t h i s c a s e . The f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s stress t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . T h e r e f o r e w e f i n d a p p e l l a n t ' s argument w i t h o u t m e r i t . F i n a l l y w e t u r n t o t h e i s s u e o f : d o e s t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e g a r d i n g t h e change o f name and whether it was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d ? A p p e l l a n t r a i s e s many o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e change o f name. I n reviewing t h e t r a n s c r i p t , we f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s and t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e s e f i n d i n g s . I t should be n o t e d , t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may have made a c l e r i c a l e r r o r i n f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d was of twenty-five p e r c e n t I n d i a n blood. But t h i s can be c o r r e c t e d by a Rule 6 0 ( a ) motion f o r c o r r e c t i o n of c l e r i c a l m i s t a k e s . Having f o u n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n its f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , w e hereby a f f i r m . W e concur: i I L l Chief J u s t i c e