Title: LOVE v LOVE

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12795 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 D O R O T H Y ARLEEN LOVE, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - ERNEST LOVE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Schulz and Davis, Dillon, Montana Carl M. Davis appeared and John Warren, argued, Dillon, Montana For Respondent : N e i l Haight argued, Helena, Montana W. G. G i l b e r t , 111, appeared, Dillon, Montana ?..t'i"' ; . : ,! ![ - 2 , ,? 7 q 4 t F i l e d : Submitted: November 21, 1974 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of the Court. This i s a divorce and c h i l d custody case. The d i s t r i c t court of the f i f t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Beaverhead, granted p l a i n t i f f mother Dorothy Arleen Love a divorce but granted custody of two minor children t o defendant f a t h e r Ernest Love. P l a i n t i f f moved t o a l t e r and amend t h e t r i a l court's findings of f a c t and conclusions of law and f o r a new t r i a l , which motions were denied and appeal was taken. Two issues a r e presented f o r consideration: 1. Whether t h e t r i a l court abused its discretion by awarding custody of the ~ a r t i e s ' two minor children t o the f a t h e r where there was no evidence showing the mother was not a f i t and proper person t o be entrusted with t h e custody of her children? 2. Whether t h e trial court erred by refusing t o grant t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l ? P l a i n t i f f mother and defendant f a t h e r had been married previously, not only t o each other, but t o persons n o t p a r t i e s t o t h i s action. The mother married a Iqr. Vezina i n 1945 and had three children by him. The t h r e e children of t h i s marriage a r e Robert, age 27; Linda, age 25; and Steven, age 14. This marriage terminated with M r . Vezina's death i n 1959. The f a t h e r w a s married previously and has f i v e children by other women. These children a r e Danny, age 21; Dennis, age 18; Dale, age 14; Marie Suzette, age 13; and Robert age 5. None of these children has ever been i n h i s custody a f t e r a divorce, nor has he ever contributed t o t h e i r support. The children of t h e present marriage are John aged 11; and J e f f r e y aged 4 . The children of ~ o r o t h y ' s marriage t o M r . Vezina have been i n her custody throughout t h e i r l i v e s and have been raised with the Love children a s s i b l i n g s , notwithstanding t h e i r biological half- blood relationship. Particularly is t h i s t r u e with respect t o the younger ones who have been raised together a s brothers. Defendant Ernest i s unable t o work due t o d i s a b i l i t i e s and l i v e s on approximately $330 per month from s o c i a l security and Veterans Disability benefit payments. H e occasionally supplements h i s income with odd job work. A t t h e t i m e of the divorce, he had an equity of over $1,000 i n a small home valued a t approximately $6,000. P l a i n t i f f Dorothy's income was $352 monthly, consisting of $164 representing Social Security benefits f o r her son Steven Vezina, $108 Social Security benefits f o r herself and the p a r t i e s 1 two children; and approximately $80 i n wages f o r a cleaning job. Due t o the divorce and t h e giving of custody of t h e two children t o defendant f a t h e r her income from s o c i a l security f o r the benefit of those children terminated. According t o the testimony one problem of the marriage concerned Dorothy's oldest son, Robert. Dorothy t e s t i f i e d t h a t Ernest was jealous of a l l her children by Vezina but p a r t i c u l a r l y Robert whom Ernest t e s t i f i e d w s an alcoholic and used drugs. Robert i s a Viet N a m veteran who receives treatment a t Fort Harrison Veterans hospital i n Helena. H i s d i s a b i l i t i e s were not designated. Whatever Robert Vezina's responsibility f o r the p a r t i e s ' marital d i f f i c u l i t i e s , it was confused by t h e trial court with t h e r o l e played by Steven t h e 14 year old. The t r i a l court ascribed Robert's character t o Steven, even though Robert had not lived a t t h e family home f o r several years, although he v i s i t e d there and w a s i n Dillon a t t h e t i m e Dorothy was e i t h e r ordered out of t h e home, a s she t e s t i f i e d , o r l e f t of her own f r e e w i l l , a s Ernest t e s t i f i e d . Both p a r t i e s agree t h a t the 14 year old Steven never caused any problems and i n f a c t was a f i n e influence on h i s younger brothers. Dorothy argues t h a t the t r i a l court based its decision on a d e s i r e t o separate the p a r t i e s 1 children from Robert, who seldom v i s i t s h i s mother, and a reading of the c o u r t ' s findings indicates t h a t t h i s i s the problem. The court found i n its modification order of a previous finding: !?hat p l a i n t i f f and defendant have had much trouble over the v i s i t s of Robert Vezina, a son of the p l a i n t i f f by a previous marriage. The court's dis- position of the custody of the Love children w i l l correct the s i t u a t i o n so t h a t 14rs. Love can e n t e r t a i n her son, Robert, i n her home from time t o t i m e a s occasion requires and enjoy every other week-end with the two boys involved i n t h i s action." Here, t h e principal i s s u e i s t o determine whether, under the f a c t s , t h e t r i a l court abused i t s discretion i n awarding t h e custody of t h e two minor children t o the f a t h e r , r a t h e r than t o the mother. N o evidence contested o r disputed t h e f i t n e s s of the mother t o have custody of t h e children. The t r i a l court noted i n i t s memorandum t h a t while he made no r u l i n g on her f i t n e s s t o have custody, t h a t : II There was no occasion t o do so since the principal care and custody was placed i n t h e i r father. The law n e i t h e r does nor requires i d l e a c t s . See section 49-124, R.C.M. 1947. U l " "Complaint i s made because we found it was f o r the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of these two boys t o be raised by t h e i r father. W e did not want t o separate these boys. W e interviewed the older boy and found no reason i n the interview, t o award them t o the mother. In f a c t , the Court observed P l a i n t i f f and Defendant very c a r e f u l l y while t e s t i f y i n g and based upon h i s t r i a l practice of 50 years involving such matters, arrived a t the con- clusion t h a t these two boys would be much b e t t e r cared f o r by t h e i r father. The hatred by t h e P l a i n t i f f f o r t h e i r f a t h e r , w a s q u i t e apparent and her r e f u s a l t o permit him t o see them p r i o r t o the t r i a l was indefensible. * Jc *.I1 This perhaps was the b a s i s upon which t h e t r i a l judge made h i s decision not t o make a finding of f i t n e s s f o r t h e mother f o r the record i s bare of any evidence t h a t she was not a good mother. R.ecognizing t h a t t h e t r i a l judge has well over 50 years of t r i a l experience, we cannot but help observe t h a t i n most divorces, and especially cases where t h e custody of children i s being determined, t h a t d i s l i k e o r hatred evidenced by t h e contestants i s not novel nor unusual. In custody cases, a s here, t h e court should determine the f i t n e s s of both p a r t i e s and it was e r r o r not t o so r u l e here, where we a r e considering children of tender years. Against t h e trial c o u r t ' s observation t h a t the mother evidenced hatred f o r the father, we have a record made i n the t r i a l court of a t o t a l f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t of t h a t f a t h e r t o make any e f f o r t t o support children of other marriages even though i n one instance he was taken t o court t o enforce the payments t o some of those children and found g u i l t y of contempt. The controlling s t a t u t o r y law i s section 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947, and t h e cases a r i s i n g thereunder. The pertinent parts of t h i s s t a t u t e are: "Rules of awarding custody of minors. In awarding t h e custody of a minor, o r i n appointing a general guardian, t h e court or o f f i c e r i s t o be guided by t h e following considerations: "1. By what appears t o be f o r the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d i n respect t o i t s temporal and i t s mental and moral welfare, and i f the child be of sufficient age t o form an i n t e l l i g e n t preference, the court may consider t h a t preference i n determining the question. "2. A s between parents adversely claiming t h e custody o r guardianship, n e i t h e r parent i s e n t i t l e d t o it a s of r i g h t ; but other things being equal, i f t h e c h i l d be of tender years, it should be given t o the mother; i f it be of an age t o require education and preparation f o r labor o r business, then t o t h e father." The t r i a l judge i n h i s memorandum quoted from D a m m v. Damrn, 82 Mont. 239, 247, 266 P. 410, noted: "* * * and it i s only on a showing of manifest abuse of such discretion t h a t t h e award made by the t r i a l court w i l l be disturbed." W e agree t h a t t h i s i s a controlling factor on review, but i n looking a t ~ o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t o r y law section 91-4515 (2), R.C.M. 1947, we note t h a t t h i s Court has i n i t s recent applications of the s t a t u t e l a i d considerable import t o the position of t h e mother i n the case of children of tender years. Here, w e have two young boys John Michael, age 11, and Jeffery, age 4. They have grown up with t h e i r half-brother Stephen, age 14, who everyone agrees is a f i n e young man and who has much good influence over h i s younger brothers. W e can see no benefit i n taking t h e two boys away from the influence of a good mother and an exemplary older brother and awarding them t o a f a t h e r because t h e court did not want t o separate the blood brothers. This Court i n a recent case, McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 1189, where custody had been given t h e f a t h e r due t o t h e emotional d i f f i c u l t i e s of the mother a t t h e time of the divorce, awarded her custody a f t e r a hearing t h a t showed t h e mother had. remarried, had overcome her emotional d i f f i c u l t i e s and had q u i t a job i n order t o r a i s e her child. The Court found t h a t it .was i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d t o be raised by the mother. This Court i n Hoppe v. Hoppe, 138 Mont. 239, 241, 356 P.2d 44, c i t i n g Freeland v. Freeland, 99 Wash. 482, 159 P. 699, speaking t o t h e logic of our s t a t u t o r y provisions noted: 11 1 Mother love i s a dominant t r a i t i n even the weakest of women, and a s a general thing surpasses the paternel affection f o r the common offspring, and, moreover, a child needs a mother's care even more than a f a t h e r ' s . For these reasons courts a r e loathe t o deprive t h e mother of t h e custody of her children, and w i l l not do so unless i t i s shown c l e a r l y t h a t she i s so f a r an u n f i t and i m - proper person t o be intrusted with such custody a s t o en- danger t h e welfare of t h e children! " See a l s o : Trudgen v. Trudgen, 134 Mont. 174, 176, 329 P.2d In an e a r l i e r case, but i n l i n e with the philosophy of t h i s Court, i n considering the custody of children of tender years, Ex parte Bourquin, 88 Mont. 118, 124, 290 P. 250, t h i s Court said: * * W e conceive the law t o be t h a t i t i s our duty t o award the i n f a n t c h i l d t o the mother, unless she has by her conduct f o r f e i t e d t h a t r i g h t , t h a t i s , t h a t it be made t o appear t h a t the mother i s u n f i t o r in- competent t o take charge of it, o r unless the welfare of the child f o r some special o r extraordinary reason demands a d i f f e r e n t disposition. I I In t h e i n s t a n t case t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f mother was u n f i t t o have custody of these children, n e i t h e r was any evidence introduced suggesting a "special or extraordinary reason" f o r not finding her a f i t person t o have custody. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t court is reversed with directions t o award the custody of t h e two minor children t o p l a i n t i f f mother, subject t o such v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s f o r the f a t h e r a s the court may see a s f i t and proper. 4 4-* - /f J u s t i c e _ r 7- i We Concur: Chi* Justice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e m - - - - - - - Justices. M r . J u s t i c e Haswell s p e c i a l l y concurring. I concur i n t h e r e s u l t but not i n a l l t h a t is s a i d i n t h e foregoing opinion. S p e c i f i c a l l y I do n o t agree with t h e statement t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a l l c a s e s should r u l e on t h e f i t n e s s of both parents f o r custody of c h i l d r e n of tender years. I n many c a s e s , t h e mother's claim t o custody of a small c h i l d w i l l p r e v a i l i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e f i t n e s s o r u n f i t n e s s of t h e f a t h e r . To re- q u i r e a f i n d i n g of u n f i t n e s s of t h e f a t h e r i n such a c a s e adversely a f f e c t s payment of c h i l d support, e x e r c i s e of v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , and r e l a t e d c o n f l i c t s - - a l l without purpose. J u s t i c e