Title: STUBBEN v FLATHEAD CO DEPT OF PU

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13318 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1976 M U Z Z E T T E STUBBEN, formerly M U Z Z E T T E AZURE on behalf of RAMONA AZURE and PEPITA AZURE, Petitioner and Appellant, F L A T H E A D C O U N T Y D E P A R T M E N T O F PUBLIC WELFARE, Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert C. Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : McGarvey, Lence & Heberling, Kalispell, Montana Jon L. Heberling argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent: Patrick M e Springer, County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana Randy K. Schwickert argued, Kalispell, Montana Thomas Mahan, Helena, Montana Submitted: October 21, 1976 Decided : iVOv 1 6 1976 Filed: ! Y O \ / ~ $ I ~ T C M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. This i s a n appeal from a d e n i a l of habeas corpus pe- t i t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Flathead County involving two minor c h i l d r e n . O n November 4 , 1974, Judge Sykes d e c l a r e d two minor c h i l d r e n of p e t i t i o n e r Muzzette Stubben (formerly Muzzette Azure) and P e t e r Azure t o be dependent neglected c h i l d r e n . A t t h a t t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e two y e a r s o l d and e i g h t months o l d . The p a r e n t s and both sets of grandparents w e r e p r e s e n t a t t h e hearing. Notice of e n t r y of judgment w a s served on Muzzette on December 20, 1974. The c h i l d r e n w e r e placed i n a f o s t e r home and have been l i v i n g t h e r e s i n c e . On June 1 0 , 1975, a n o t i c e of appeal was f i l e d . O n October 1 0 , 1975, p e t i t i o n e r Muzzette f i l e d t h i s habeas corpus p e t i t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o l l a t - e r a l l y a t t a c k i n g t h e judgment entered i n 1974. The grandparents then withdrew t h e i r appeal and t h e p e t i t i o n w a s heard and denied by Judge Sykes on December 30, 1975. Three i s s u e s w e r e presented and argued before t h i s Court. 1. Was t h e habeas corpus p e t i t i o n a proper remedy i n t h e c a s e ? 2. Did t h e p e t i t i o n e r have standing? 3. Does due process r e q u i r e t h e appointment of counsel f o r c h i l d r e n i n a dependent n e g l e c t proceeding o r a t a minimum does t h e record a f f i r m a t i v e l y show t h a t t h e c o u r t c o n s i d e r e x e r c i s i n g i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o a p p o i n t counsel? W e answer a l l t h r e e i s s u e s i n t h e negative. H e r e t h e p e t i t i o n e r Muzzette had a n adequate remedy of appeal which w a s n o t e x e r c i s e d and t h e l a w has long been s e t t l e d t h a t g e n e r a l l y habeas corpus w i l l n o t be granted where t h e ade- q u a t e remedy has n o t been taken advantage o f . Ex p a r t e Solway, 82 Mont. 89, 265 P. 21; P e t i t i o n of Grady, 165 Mont. 531, 530 P.2d 4 6 1 ; 39 Am J u r 2d, Habeas Corpus, 5 2 1 ; 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus 5 5 3 & 4. Nor can t h e f a c t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r has allowed t i m e t o e l a p s e w i t h i n which her appeal could have been taken g i v e her any r i g h t t o r e s o r t t o habeas corpus. 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus S 8 . P e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o appoint counsel f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e dependent n e g l e c t hearing i s grounds f o r i s s u i n g t h e w r i t . Not so! The f a c t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t ap- p o i n t counsel here was due t o t h e f a c t t h a t under our s t a t u t e s appointment of counsel is n o t mandatory. Judge Sykes considered t h e question and found t h a t t h e Flathead County Department of Welfare, through i t s counsel, properly represented t h e c h i l d r e n . Counsel argues t h a t t h e r e is a persuasive developing t r e n d t h a t c a l l s f o r t h e appointment of counsel f o r c h i l d r e n i n n e g l e c t cases. However, only one state, New York, has order- ed counsel i n a l l c a s e s and two j u r i s d i c t i o n s (Oregon and Pennsyl- vania) i n c a s e s , depending upon t h e circumstances. N o r e f e r e n c e i s made t o whether t h e s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s made t h e change through j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n o r through t h e l e g i s l a t i v e process. W e next consider p e t i t i o n e r ' s standing a s t h e n a t u r a l mother t o p e t i t i o n on behalf of her c h i l d r e n . The voluminous f i l e s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t show t h a t t h e r i g h t s of t h e c h i l d r e n have been f u l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t h e pro- longed l e g a l proceedings involving n o t only t h e c h i l d r e n b u t t h e p e t i t i o n e r . Here, t h e Welfare Department has made m u l t i p l e in- v e s t i g a t i o n s and given every c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o p r o t e c t i n g t h e s e c h i l d r e n . P e t i t i o n e r has always been adequately advised by coun- sel. The maternal and p a t e r n a l grandparents have been before t h e c o u r t with counsel i n e f f o r t s t o n o t only salvage t h e pe- t i t i o n e r ' s f i r s t marriage, b u t t o h e l p t h e s e c h i l d r e n with t h e p a r e n t s . Judge Sykes' memorandums show thoughtful c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t r y i n g t o solve t h e problems presented t o him which u l t i m a t e l y n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e placement of t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e c o n t r o l of t h e Welfare Department. The cases r e l i e d on by p e t i t i o n e r w e r e n o t f a c t u a l l y i n p o i n t f o r i n each of them t h e p a r e n t s d i d not have proper notice. After a l l t h e hearings, t h e c o u r t found properly t h a t it was i n t h e c h i l d r e n s ' b e s t i n t e r e s t s t h a t t h e various r i g h t s argued f o r be terminated. These f i n d i n g s and conclusions were n o t challenged and w e f i n d p e t i t i o n e r does not have standing t o now p e t i t i o n f o r her children. The l a s t i s s u e i s d i r e c t e d t o t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y re- quired i n p r o t e c t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n s ' i n t e r e s t s i n a dependent neglected c h i l d r e n proceeding. P e t i t i o n e r r e l i e s upon a r e c e n t (1974) c a s e from Oregon, S t a t e ex r e l . Juv. Dept. of Multnomah Cty. v . Wade, Or.App, 527 P.2d 753. This i s t h e only c a s e found t h a t counsel must be provided as a matter of due process of law. None of t h e o t h e r c a s e s c i t e d d i r e c t l y support p e t i t i o n e r ' s argument. Our s t a t u t e , a p a r t of our r e c e n t l y adopted Youth Court Act, Section 10-1310(12), R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s : " ( 1 2 ) The c o u r t may a t any t i m e on i t s own - motion, o r t h e motion of any p a r t y , appoint a guardian ad l i t e m f o r t h e youth, o r counsel f o r any indigent party." (Emphasis supplied.) The s t a t u t e c l e a r l y v e s t s d i s c r e t i o n a r y powers i n t h e c o u r t and here t h e c o u r t found 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 w e r e adequately protected without appointing a d d i t i o n a l counsel. While p e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t under t h e due process c l a u s e of both t h e our s t a t e and/federal c o n s t i t u t i o n t h e appointment of counsel i s mandatory, she weakens her argument by saying t h e t r i a l c o u r t erred i n f a i l i n g t o consider t h e appointment of counsel and t h a t a showing i n t h e record t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d e x e r c i s e t h i s measure of d i s c r e t i o n i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y required i n a proper dependent neglected c h i l d r e n hearing. Not so! The records of t h e case c l e a r l y show t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d show t h a t it was aware of t h e argument and properly exercised i t s d i s c r e - t i o n . A s noted previously t h e s e c h i l d r e n have been i n a f o s t e r home f o r over two years. The problems of t h e p a r e n t s have been before t h e c o u r t s f o r a long period. A t t h e time of o r a l argument c e r t a i n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s were discussed by counsel which w e r e not considered by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r t h e Welfare Department and we suggest t h a t a f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n might be made, a d e c i s i o n which we leave t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . With t h i s comment w e a f f i r m t h e judgment. < . C. Gulbrandson, D i s t r i c t