Title: GILMORE v BOEHM (GILMORE)

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12661 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA 1974 DANIEL J. GILMORE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, RENEE GILMORE, now known as RENEE BOEHM, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o5)the F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Peter-W. Meloy , Judge presiding . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Smith and Harper, Helena, Montana Charles A. Smith, 1 1 1 argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Charles E. Petaja argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: September 17, 1974 Decided : j ~ h - 8 1 ,I C M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from an order of the d i s t r i c t court, Lewis and Clark County, awarding custody of three minor children t o the f a t h e r , Daniel J. Gilmore, who brought the action i n t h e d i s t r i c t court t o affirm an order by a North Dakota d i s t r i c t court awarding him custody of the three minor children. The North Dakota court a l s o awarded the f a t h e r c h i l d support from t h e mother. Both p a r t i e s and the North Dakota Court have consented t o the jurisdiction of the Montana court The mother appealed the order of the Lewis and Clark County d i s t r i c t court, and counterpetitioned requesting modification of the of the custody award t~ grant her custody of her three minor children, Robert, Brett, and Brandie, and reasonable c h i l d support. The d i s t r i c t court denied the mother's counterpetition and held the father was e n t i t l e d t o continue having custody and control of the three minor children. Appellant and respondent were married f o r s i x years and t h e three minor children were t h e issue of t h a t marriage. Their ages a r e 7, 5, and 3 . The p a r t i e s were divorced on June 19, 1972, i n ~ i s m a r c k , North Dakota, a t which time the I?orth Dakota court awarded the custody of the children t o the father. The f a t h e r now works a t the Helena X-G Men's Store, earning $900 per month plus bonuses. H e works four days a week from 9:30 a.m. t o 9:00 p.m., and on Saturdays from 9:30 a.m. t o 6:30 p.m. H e has a licensed day care center t o provide f o r t h e children during the weekdays. On weekends and nights out, he has a babysitter watch the children. In January 1973, the mother was remarried t o a 23 year old employee of the Billings K-Z Men's Store, earning $450 per month. A t the time of the i n s t a n t action, she was planning t o q u i t her job; she was four months pregnant; and she and her husband were i n t h e process of purchasing a new three bedroom mobile home. A t the time of the divorce, the mother agreed t h e f a t h e r should have custody of t h e children because she was financially unable t o care f o r them and, emotionally, the f a t h e r could b e t t e r care f o r the children. The mother now argues there has been a change of circum- stances which warrants a modification of the custody decree. She argues t h a t since she has remarried she now has the a b i l i t y t o provide and give her children the care and a t t e n t i o n they need on a f u l l time b a s i s ; t h a t she i s restored i n emotional health; and, the children now need the mother's a t t e n t i o n and care and a normal home l i f e r a t h e r than t h e a t t e n t i o n and care "which has been dele- gated t o strangers on a per diem basis." The mother f u r t h e r argues t h a t the best i n t e r e s t s of the children demand t h e i r custody be changed t o t h e i r mother and c i t e s section 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947, i n support of her position: I1 2. A s between parents adversely claiming the custody o r guardianship, neither parent i s en- t i t l e d t o i t a s of r i g h t ; but other things being equal, i f the child be of tender years, it should be given t o the mother * * *. " Appellant mother makes a strong argument c i t i n g a l l the accepted cases on the subject of change of conditions and welfare and best i n t e r e s t s of children and then concludes t h a t there i s a p r i o r i t y of some kind between the two expressed i n Bayers v. Bayers, 129 Mont. 1, 6, 281 P.2d 506: 11 1 In custody cases, the underlying principle, para- mount t o a l l others, is the welfare and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e child. In no way i n c o n f l i c t with t h i s r u l e i s another, equally w e l l established, t h a t once a court has decreed it there may be no change i n the c h i l d ' s custody except where adequate cause therefor a r i s e s out of changed conditions. This principle i s based on t h e idea not only t h a t t h e s t a b i l i t y of the home l i f e of the children is an important and v i t a l f a c t o r , but a l s o that t h e turmoil of l i t i g a t i o n must somewhere end."' Appellant's c i t a t i o n s a r e perfectly valid and express the doc- t r i n e s involved but they bear no p r i o r i t y relationship, only a qualifying r e l a t i o n . There must be a change of circumstances o r conditions from the ci.rcumstances t h a t existed a t the time of the o r i g i n a l decree and upon which the decree was based under section 91-4515, R.C.M 1947, which provides t h a t i n awarding the custody of minor children the court is t o be guided: "By what appears t o be f o r the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t-he c h i l d i n respect t o i t s temporal and i t s mental and moral welfare * * *.'I The claimed change i n conditions o r circumstances can be judged on no l e s s e r standard. Appellant quarrels with the t r i a l c o u r t ' s findings X I and X I I , which fFnd no change of circumstances from June 19, 1972, i n Bismarck, North Dakota, t o the present was demonstrated t 2 the court. Appellant c i t e s several cases and r e l i e s on McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 118?, as an almost i d e n t i c a l f a c t s i t u a t i o n where the d i s t r i c t court found a change of circumstances and t h i s Court affirmed. F i r s t , the cases a r e distinguishable on t h e f a c t s and the q u a l i t y of the evidence. Second, the d i s t r i c t court i n McCullough found a change of circumstances on the evi- dence presented i n t h a t case and when appealed it was n o t our province t o review the record of the t r i a l court t o determine i f we agreed with t h e conclusions reached, i f supported by credible evidence. W e must indulge i n the presumption the judgment of the d i s t r i c t court is correct and w i l l not be disturbed unless there i s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e evidence against it, when viewed i n the l i g h t most favorable t o the prevailing party. Stromberg and Brown v. Seaton Ranch Co., 160 Mont. 293, 502 P.2d 41. I The i n s t a n t case came t o t h i s Court f o r review upon a denial of a change of circumstances and we must grant these same presumptions and when so doing find credible evidence t o support the trial court. The f a c t s show the children, a t the time of t h i s action, had lived with t h e i r f a t h e r f o r a year. A l l persons who t e s t i f i e d agreed the f a t h e r was a f i t person and agreed he cared f o r the children well. The mother stipulated the father was a f i t person t o care f o r the children. The s o c i a l worker, who t e s t i f i e d a s an expert witness, stated: "Although the mother may be very capable of caring f o r the children, I believe t h a t t o subject the children t o separation again is not i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the children especially i f one is t o consider the very satis- factory s i t u a t i o n they a r e now experiencing. 11 I n McCullough and again i n the most recent decision concerning t h i s problem, In r e Adoption of Biery, M n n t , , 522 P.2d. 1377, 1378, 31 St.Rep. 461, t h i s Court stated: "1n a l l such cases the c r u c i a l f a c t ~ r i s the c h i l d ' s welfare, both material and psychological, considering i n particular t h e t i e s of affection the child has formed and the consequences of breaking thoseties,* * * "What is, o r what is not i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d depends upon the f a c t s and circumstances of each case. The responsibility of deciding custody i s a d e l i c a t e one which is lodged with the d i s t r i c t court. The judge hearing o r a l testimony i n such a controversy has a superior advantage i n determining the same, and h i s decision ought not t~ be disturbed except upon a c l e a r showing of abuse of discretion. [Citing cases]" W e find no abuse of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s discretion. The judg- t04 Concur: ' i Chief J u s t i c e Justices.