Title: MATTER OF INQUIRY INTO J J S

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13922 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA IN THE MATTER OF INQUIRY INTO J.J.S., Youth In Need of Care. Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John R. Prater argued, Terry, Montana For Respondent : V . G . Koch, County Attorney, Sidney, Montana Richard G. Phillips, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Sidney, Montana Thomas Mahan, Helena, Montana Submitted: March 7, 1978 .APR --3 1 9 7 8 Decided. . .:-- T? - " - Filed: - L 1 J M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s of a minor c h i l d from a judgment of t h e District Court, Richland County. In t h e judgment, permanent custody of t h e c h i l d with t h e r i g h t t o consent t o adoption was awarded t o t h e Department of S o c i a l & R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Services (SRS) of t h e S t a t e of Montana. The minor c h i l d was born t o a p p e l l a n t s on J u l y 9, 1975, i n Dickinson, North Dakota. A t t h e time of h i s b i r t h , h i s f a t h e r was 26 years o l d and h i s mother was 16 years o l d . I n 1976, t h e family moved t o Wolf P o i n t , Montana. On o r about March 24, 1976, t h e f a t h e r was i n j a i l f o r drunken- ness. I t was a t t h i s t i m e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s f i r s t came i n t o c o n t a c t with SRS, through t h e Roosevelt County Welfare Department. The welfare department e n r o l l e d t h e f a t h e r i n an alcohol treatment program i n Havre, which he attended f o r about a week. On A p r i l 19, 1976, he was a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g while i n t o x i c a t e d . From March u n t i l J u l y 1976, t h e a p p e l l a n t s and t h e i r minor c h i l d were being a s s i s t e d by t h e Roosevelt County Welfare Department. I n J u l y 1976, a p p e l l a n t s , w i t h t h e i r c h i l d , moved t o Sidney, Montana. The Roosevelt County Welfare Department r e f e r r e d a p p e l l a n t s ' c a s e t o t h e Richland County Welfare Department. It f i r s t made c o n t a c t with a p p e l l a n t s , i n t h e i r home, on o r about J u l y 23, 1976. The s o c i a l worker who made t h e i n i t i a l c o n t a c t i n Sidney, described a p p e l l a n t s f home a s " f i l t h y " . A follow-up was made on J u l y 27, 1976, and t h e same f i l t h y conditions e x i s t e d . The welfare department arranged homemaker s e r v i c e s f o r a p p e l l a n t s . Throughout August and September, 1976, t h e s e f i l t h y conditions continued. When t h e s o c i a l worker made a v i s i t on September 29, 1976, she found t h e minor c h i l d was crawling around on t h e f l o o r which was covered with ashes and c i g a r e t t e remains, and he was e a t i n g bread crumbs o f f t h e f l o o r . I n October 1976, conditions i n a p p e l l a n t s ' home had n o t improved. There was garbage on t h e kitchen f l o o r , t h e c h i l d was i n w e t d i a p e r s , soaked and physically f i l t h y . Besides providing homemaker s e r v i c e s , welfare arranged f o r day c a r e a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e c h i l d . The day c a r e worker t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e c h i l d was brought i n , he w a s f i l t h y , h i s h a i r smelled of u r i n e , and t h e tops of h i s f e e t were black. The Richland County Welfare Department a l s o g o t t h e f a t h e r i n t o two alcohol treatment programs. H e d i d n o t f i n i s h e i t h e r one. O n November 19, 1976, t h e Richland County Welfare Department p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r temporary custody of t h e minor c h i l d . O n November 24, 1976, t h e c o u r t granted t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e c h i l d w a s placed i n a f o s t e r home. The welfare department informed a p p e l l a n t s t h a t c e r t a i n improvements would have t o be made i n t h e i r home o r t h e i r c h i l d would be taken from them permanently. The improvements SRS requested were: (1) Full-time employment; ( 2 ) a b s t e n t i o n from alcohol; (3) e f f e c t i v e budgeting t o s e e t h a t expenses f o r a l l n e c e s s i t i e s w e r e m e t ; ( 4 ) maintenance of good housekeeping and personal c l e a n l i n e s s ; and ( 5 ) weekly menu planning and preparation of n u t r i t i o n a l l y balanced meals. Appellants were given t h r e e months t o make t h e s e improvements. O n February 23, 1977, SRS p e t i t i o n e d f o r permanent custody. A hearing was held on A p r i l 20, 1977. O n May 3, 1977, f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law w e r e entered granting permanent custody t o SRS. Appellants moved f o r a new hearing, which w a s denied. On J u l y 20, 1977, amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law were entered. The custody award was unchanged i n t h e amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law. This appeal then ensued. Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on appeal: 1. Did t h e District Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by n o t appointing independent counsel f o r t h e c h i l d ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse its d i s c r e t i o n i n determining t h a t permanent placement with SRS 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 ? I n i t s amended f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law, t h e District Court s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t t h e appointment of independent counsel f o r t h e minor c h i l d w a s unnecessary t o i n s u r e t h e development of an adequately complete record of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . Appellants argue t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s o f i n d i n g . This Court has held t h a t t h e appointment of counsel t o r e p r e s e n t a minor c h i l d i n dependency proceedings i s n o t mandatory. The c o u r t "may" appoint counsel f o r t h e c h i l d . Stubben v. Flathead County Dept. of P u b l i c Welfare, (19761, Mont . 556 P.2d 904, 33 St.Rep. 1082. The deci- s i o n i n Stubben was based on s e c t i o n 10-1310(12), R.C.M. 1947, which provides t h a t appointment of counsel f o r t h e c h i l d i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . On J u l y 8, 1977, t h i s Court i n t e r p r e t e d s e c t i o n 10- 1310(12), R.C.M. 1947, again. S t i l l r e f u s i n g t o make t h e appointment of counsel f o r a minor c h i l d mandatory, w e held t h a t where custody i s i n s e r i o u s d i s p u t e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l appoint counsel f o r t h e c h i l d o r make a f i n d i n g s t a t i n g t h e reasons such appointment was unnecessary. I n t h e Matter of t h e Guardianship of G u l l e t t e , (19771, Mont. I 566 P.2d 396, 34 St.Rep. 277. Appellants argue t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t h e r e were amended on J u l y 20, 1977, t o bring t h i s case i n t o conformity with G u l l e t t e . That may be s o , b u t w e f a i l t o see how 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 n o t appointing counsel f o r t h e c h i l d . F i r s t , s i n c e t h i s c a s e was heard and decided p r i o r t o our d e c i s i o n i n G u l l e t t e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court was n o t required t o make any f i n d i n g on t h e appointment of counsel f o r t h e minor c h i l d . I t i s only i n those cases heard and decided a f t e r G u l l e t t e t h a t such a f i n d i n g i s necessary. F u r t h e r , t h e r u l e i s t h a t t h e appointment of counsel i s only neces- s a r y when t h e c h i l d needs an advocate t o r e p r e s e n t h i s p o s i t i o n a s t o t h e i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e o r t o ensure t h e development of an adequately complete record concerning 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 . I n t h e Matter of D l (1976), 24 0r.App. 601, 547 P.2d 175. Neither of those s i t u a t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t here. The minor c h i l d was too young t o have any p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e s and t h e record of t h e hearing i s adequate t o determine 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 . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t appointing counsel f o r t h e c h i l d . Next, a p p e l l a n t s contend t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding permanent custody t o SRS. They claim they presented t h e c o u r t with a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o a permanent taking of t h e c h i l d from them. This a l t e r n a t i v e w a s t o have t h e c h i l d placed i n t h e j o i n t custody of appel- l a n t s and t h e c h i l d ' s grandparents, with whom they were l i v i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e hearing. They argue t h e l e g i s l a - t i v e i n t e n t i n s e c t i o n 10-1300, R.C.M. 1947, was t o preserve t h e u n i t y and welfare of t h e family whenever possible. Thus, a p p e l l a n t s maintain t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was contrary t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , a s they presented t h e c o u r t with an a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t could preserve t h e u n i t y of t h e family. W e 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 Court i n awarding permanent custody t o SRS. I n determining t h e custody i s s u e , t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d i s t h e para- mount concern. I n t h e Matter of Henderson, (1975), 168 Mont. 329, 542 P.2d 1204. This Court has s a i d : "What is, o r what is n o t i n 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 depends upon t h e f a c t s and circumstances of each case. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of deciding custody i s a d e l i c a t e one which is lodged with t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The judge hearing o r a l testimony i n such a controversy has a superior 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 disturbed except upon a c l e a r showing of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . " Adoption of Biery, (1974), 164 Mont. 353, 356, 522 P.2d 1377. H e r e , t h e r e has been no c l e a r showing of an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . Our summary of t h e f a c t s shows t h a t t h e c h i l d was neglected p r i o r t o t h e temporary custody award t o SRS. Appellants admit they d i d n e g l e c t t h e c h i l d a t t h a t t i m e . Between t h e t i m e of t h e temporary custody order and t h e hearing on permanent custody, t h e evidence shows t h a t a p p e l l a n t s had n o t made t h e improvements SRS requested. The f a t h e r had entered another alcohol treatment pro- gram, b u t he again f a i l e d t o f i n i s h it. H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he s t i l l drank and had g o t t e n drunk s i n c e t h e c h i l d w a s removed from t h e home. The testimony i n d i c a t e s t h e f a t h e r was working on h i s s t e p f a t h e r ' s f a r m . B u t , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he went t o work t h e r e on January 17, 1977. Thus, t h e f a t h e r had not had f u l l employment very long p r i o r t o t h e hearing and t h e evidence shows he had changed jobs 1 4 o r 15 t i m e s s i n c e a p p e l l a n t s w e r e married i n 1974. The evidence r e v e a l s t h e mother s t i l l needed help i n maintaining a c l e a n house and preparing n u t r i t i o n a l meals, even though she had been receiving such h e l p from J u l y t o November, 1976 through SRS. F i n a l l y , t h e doctor f o r t h e c h i l d informed t h e c o u r t , i n h i s r e p o r t , t h a t t h e c h i l d w a s emotionally deprived and he would n o t recommend r e t u r n i n g t h e c h i l d t o t h e family, a s t h e c h i l d was progressing i n t h e f o s t e r home. A l l t h i s evidence i n d i c a t e s t h e c h i l d was neglected and t h e improve- ments needed i n t h e family home had n o t been met. Since t h e proof shows t h i s minor c h i l d w a s neglected, it would n o t be p o s s i b l e t o preserve family u n i t y . I t is when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e o f proof t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e policy t o preserve t h e u n i t y and welfare of t h e family must p r e v a i l . Division of Child Welfare Services v. F i s h e r , (1976), 169 Mont. 254, 545 P.2d 654. Therefore, t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court awarding permanent custody t o SRS w a s proper. Family u n i t y need n o t be preserved a t t h e expense of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . I n R e G . , Youths i n Need of Care, (1977) I Mont. , 570 P.2d 1 1 1 0 , 34 St.Rep. 1179. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. 4 " n d b4)%Wt.&y Chief J u s t i c e W e Concur: