Title: PETERSON CHILD DEPEND NEGL v

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12624 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 7 5 I N THE MATTER O F DECLARING JONES AND PETERSON CHILDREN D E P E N D E N T AND N E G L E C T E D CHILDREN DIVISION O F CHILD W E L F A R E SERVICES D E P A R T M E N T O F PUBLIC W E L F A R E STATE O F M O N T A N A , Petitioner and Respondent, -vs - JUDY PETERSON, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert H . Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : V. C. Anderson argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Harold Hanser, County Attorney, argued, Billings, Montana Thomas H. Mahan argued, Helena, Montana 7 r r - Filed: - - Submitted: June 18, 1975 T- PP-- Decided:-.ED$ IT--. M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, which declafed eight children depen- dent and neglected and awarded permanent custody and control t o the Child Welfare Services, Department of Public Welfare, State of Montana. Appellant mother, Judy Peterson, i s 30 years of age. Five of the children were issue of her f i r s t marriage, one i s an i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d , and two a r e t h e issue of her present marriage t o Dale Peterson, whom she married i n 1969 i n Wyoming. The family came t o B i l l i n g s , Montana, i n 1971. In November 1972, a s a r e s u l t of marital problems i n the home, t h e children were given t o the Yellowstone County Welfare Department by a parental agreement f o r a period of t h i r t y days. O n December 12, 1972, a p e t i t i o n f o r temporary custody was f i l e d by the welfare department and an order awarding tem- porary custody of the eight children t o t h e Yellowstone County Welfare Department was granted by the court. A p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody with r i g h t t o consent t o adoption of the children was f i l e d on March 20, 1973. O n August 16, 1973, the p e t i t i o n was heard by the court. O n October 9, 1973, D i s t r i c t Judge Robert H. Wilson entered findings of f a c t , conclusions of law, order and judgment, which declared the eight children t o be dependent and neglected within the meaning of section 10-501, R.C.M. 1947, and awarded permanent care, custody and control t o the Child Welfare Services Division of the Department of Welfare of the State of Montana, with the r i g h t t o consent t o t h e i r adoption. The mother, Judy Peterson, appeals from t h a t judgment. Appellant mother presented several issues f o r review by t h i s Court of which the controlling issue is: Whether the d i s t r i c t court abused i t s discretion i n finding the children dependent and neglected and awarding custody t o the Child Welfare ServicesDivision, with a r i g h t t o consent t o adoption. Section 10-501, R.C.M. 1947, defined a dependent and neglected c h i l d as: "* * * any child of the age of sixteen years, o r under t h a t age * * * who has no proper parental care or guardianship * * * or whose home, by reason of neglect, cruelty, o r depravity on the part of i t s parents, guardian, o r other person i n whose care it may be, is an u n f i t place f o r such c h i l d , o r whose environment i s such a s t o warrant the s t a t e , i n t h e i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d , t o assume i t s guardianship o r support. I I Testimony a t the permanent custody hearing on August 16, 1973, e l i c i t e d these f a c t s : The husband i n the home, Dale Peter- son, was three times committed t o the Montana s t a t e hospital f o r the insane by involuntary proceedings. A t the time of the permanent custody hearing he was incompetent but was represented a t the hearing by h i s s i s t e r , Joanne Martell, who had previously been appointed h i s guardian ad litem. It was not uncommon f o r Dale Peterson t o maltreat the children. The mother was given help from various agencies i n Wyoming and Montana i n the f i e l d s of food preparation, n u t r i t i o n , money management, clothing, clean- l i n e s s and medical care f o r the children. Despite t h i s help, the testimony revealed over and over again t h a t the children were not provided proper or s u f f i c i e n t food, clothing, sanitary medical care even when the l a t t e r was seriously needed. In the opinion of one social worker who had made approxi- mately 45 v i s i t s t o the Peterson home, the children's cleanliness was the worst he had ever seen. The children often lacked warm clothing i n the winter, even though various welfare agencies had repeatedly given the family overshoes, heavy coats, shoes and other clothing. The combination of the f a t h e r ' s behavior and the lack of these basic needs resulted i n a psychological-sociological assess- ment which concluded t h a t most of the children had severe emo- t i o n a l problems. Four persons (a public health and school nurse, a psychiatric nurse, and two social welfare workers) unquali- f i e d l y recommended the children be permanently removed from both parents. After the children were removed from the parents and placed i n a receiving home, considerable emotional improvement was noted. The remaining issues presented f o r review concern lack of due process as a r e s u l t of unreasonable delay from the date of the temporary custody and the hearing on the permanent custody p e t i t i o n and whether information obtained by various county agencies is privileged. Was the eight months delay between the date of the temporary custody order and the hearing on the permanent custody p e t i t i o n such an unreasonable length of time a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a violation of due process? Section 10-503, R.C.M. 1947, (repealed Ch. 328, Laws 1974), provided t h a t when children a r e removed from t h e i r parents i n an emergency s i t u a t i o n a p e t i t i o n f o r cus- tody must be f i l e d within 48 hours. In t h i s instance, however, the children were removed from t h e i r parents under a t h i r t y day parental agreement a t the expiration of which a temporary custody order was obtained. There was an i n t e r v a l of eight months between the date of issuing the temporary order and the date of hearing on the permanent custody petition. There i s no Montana s t a t u t e requiring a hearing within a given time period. Although the mother was represented by counsel a t the hearing and two members of the Yellowstone County Welfare Office t e s t i f i e d , the record contains no testimony regarding the reason f o r the delay o r showing funda- mental unfairness of such a delay. During t h i s period the mother had contact with the children several times a week. There i s nothing i n the record t o indicate t h a t a demand f o r the children or an e a r l y hearing was ever made by the mother. I n support of her argument t h e mother c i t e s a Colorado case, P.F.M. v. D i s t r i c t Court In and For the County of Adams, Colo. 1974, 520 P.2d 742. There, a Colorado s t a t u t e demanded a hearing within 48 hours a f t e r the taking of the children. The Colorado Supreme Court held t h a t a hearing had t o occur, but t h a t f a i l u r e t o do so within 48 hours did - not make the custody proceedings void ab i n i t i o . This case does not reach t h e issue involved here. The question of whether the information obtained by various county agencies (i.e. the school nurse, a public nurse, and s o c i a l welfare workers) during the time they worked with the Peterson family, including parents and children, could be used a s evidence i n a dependent and neglected proceeding i s not supported by Montana s t a t u t e s on privilege communications o r case law. Appellant mother c i t e s the Court t o T i t l e 42, U.S.C.A. 5602 (a) ( 9 ) , a federal s t a t u t e requiring s t a t e agencies t o provide safeguards which r e s t r i c t t h e use or disclosure of in- formation concerning applicants and recipients of welfare. This federal s t a t u t e creates no privilege of communication be- tween a welfare agency and a welfare c l i e n t i n a proceeding of t h i s nature. Child custody problems a r e never e a s i l y resolved. How- ever, the children's b e s t i n t e r e s t and welfare, not t h a t of the parents, i s the paramount consideration. In r e Olson Children, Mont . , 524 P.2d 779, 31 St.Rep.543; In r e J u l i a Ann Bad Yellow Hair, 162 Mont. 107, 112, 509 P.2d 9 , and cases c i t e d therein. W e a r e mindful t h a t ordinarily a c h i l d ' s i n t e r e s t s and welfare w i l l best be served by retaining custody i n the n a t u r a l parents, however, the circumstances of the individual case may require a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t . In r e J u l i a Ann Bad Yellow Hair, supra. W e find no prejudicial e r r o r i n the record. Review of the e n t i r e p r o c e e d i n g s ~ m l s t h a t there i s an abundance of substantial credible evidence t o support the finding and judgment of the d i s t r i c t court. The judgment i s affirmed. ................................. J u s t i c e W e Concur: .............................. Chief J u s t i c e r Justices. \