97-668

 No. 97-668

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

 1998 MT 126N

 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF 

 LISA LOU STROUF, 

 Petitioner and Respondent,

 and

 THOMAS LEE STROUF,

 Respondent and Appellant.

 APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Yellowstone,

 The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding.

 COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 John J. Cavan; Cavan & Smith, Billings, Montana

 For Respondent:

 J. Reuss; Wright, Tolliver & Guthals, Billings, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: April 23, 1998

 

 Decided: May 28, 1998 

 Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-668%20Opinion.htm (1 of 4)4/18/2007 2:01:39 PM
97-668

 1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1996

Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent

but shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court

and shall be reported by case title, Supreme Court cause number and result to

the State Reporter Publishing Company and to West Group in the quarterly

table of noncitable cases issued by this Court.

 2 Appellant Thomas L. Strouf (Tom) appeals from the second amended

judgment of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County,

awarding Respondent Lisa L. Strouf (Lisa) physical custody of the couple's

two minor children for at least 181 days each year. We affirm.

 Factual and Procedural Background

 3 Tom and Lisa were married September 10, 1983. They have two

children: Joshua, age 13; and Ashley, age 11. On September 9, 1996, Lisa

filed a petition asking that the marriage be dissolved, property be apportioned,

and provision made for the custody of the children. Pursuant to stipulation of

the parties, the District Court ordered Court Services of the Thirteenth Judicial

District (Court Services) to investigate the home and circumstances and make

appropriate recommendations to the court regarding the care, custody, and

control of the minor children. Court Services completed the examination and

recommended that Tom and Lisa should continue to share joint legal and

residential custody. The report suggested a custody plan by which the children

would reside with Tom during the school year and with Lisa on weekends and

during the summer.

 4 The District Court did not interview Joshua or Ashley regarding their

opinions on the custody issue. However, Court Services interviewed the

children and summarized the interviews in its report. The report noted that:

"The children were adamant in their beliefs that they should stay with their

father." 

 5 On March 12, 1997, the District Court held a hearing on the matter. 

In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the District Court found that it

would be in the best interests of the minor children if the parties had joint

custody and adopted the custody plan suggested by Court Services. The court

found that Tom and Lisa should have "joint custody of their two minor

children, with Tom serving as primary residential custodian, but time with the

children shared as equally as possible." On June 3, 1997, the court entered a

judgment reflecting these findings. On July 16, 1997, the District Court

entered an amended judgment, which added the following provision:

"Furthermore, custody shall be allocated in such a way as to assure that [Lisa]

has physical custody at least 181 days per year."

 Standard of Review

 6 We review a district court's award of child custody to determine

whether its findings are clearly erroneous. In re Marriage of Dreesbach

(1994), 265 Mont. 216, 220-21, 875 P.2d 1018, 1021. When the district

court's findings are supported by substantial credible evidence, and thus not

clearly erroneous, this Court will uphold the district court's decision unless a

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-668%20Opinion.htm (2 of 4)4/18/2007 2:01:39 PM
97-668

clear abuse of discretion is shown. Marriage of Dreesbach, 875 P.2d at 1021.

 Discussion 

 7 Tom argues that the District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of

law do not support the second amended judgment's granting of 181 days of

physical custody to Lisa. Findings of fact and conclusions of law are not the

judgment, but merely the foundation for the judgment. In re Marriage of

Barron (1978), 177 Mont. 161, 580 P.2d 936. Thus, we look to both the

district court's express reasoning and the record to determine whether there is

substantial evidence to support the judgment. Frazier v. Frazier (1984), 208

Mont. 150, 676 P.2d 217. In this case, we recognize the apparent incongruity

between the District Court's conclusion that Tom should be primary custodian

pursuant to the Court Service's custody plan and its award of 181 days to Lisa. 

Nonetheless, we determine that the second amended judgment is supported by

substantial evidence. 

 8 The joint custody statute, 40-4-224, MCA (repealed 1997), suggests

a preference for joint physical custody, if that arrangement is in the best

interest of the child. Tom argues that the District Court did not properly

consider the children's best interests. He contends that had the court

interviewed the children, it would have learned that they both adamantly prefer

to live with him. The district court, in its discretion, may elect not to interview

a child if there is other evidence from which the child's best interests can be

determined. McDowell v. McDowell (1994), 263 Mont. 252, 868 P.2d 1250. 

In this case, Court Services interviewed the children and included excerpts

from the interview in its report. The Court Services' report, which is part of

the record, states that the children both choose to live with their father. The

District Court had sufficient evidence before it to consider the children's

wishes and was within its discretion in choosing not to interview them

personally. 

 9 At the hearing, Tom testified concerning Lisa's role as a parent prior to

their separation. He testified that she was often remiss in her housekeeping

duties and that, at times, he was genuinely concerned about whether she would

feed the children. However, he also testified that he did not cook, clean, or

know how to wash clothes. The District Court found that Tom's testimony

regarding Lisa's care of the children was exaggerated and not credible. 

 10 Lisa testified that Tom often attempted to make the children fear and

mistrust her or to embarrass her in front of them. Tom denied doing this, but

admitted that he was very angry at Lisa over the circumstances surrounding

their separation. The District Court found Lisa more credible on this matter

and held that Tom's attempts to turn the children against Lisa demonstrated a

lack of care and concern for them. However, the court also found that Lisa put

her own interests ahead of those of the children at times. The District Court

concluded that "[b]oth parents displayed some distasteful parenting behaviors

and both need to practice more positive parenting skills in the future . . . ." 

None of these findings are clearly erroneous, and they support the second

amended judgment. 

 11 We determine that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-668%20Opinion.htm (3 of 4)4/18/2007 2:01:39 PM
97-668

awarding Lisa physical custody of the children 181 days each year. Based on

the foregoing, we affirm the decision of the District Court.

 /S/ W. WILLIAM

LEAPHART

 

We concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-668%20Opinion.htm (4 of 4)4/18/2007 2:01:39 PM