No. 13589 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977

INTHE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF DARLENE RAE REDCROW

Appeal from: DistrictCourt of the Fourth Judicial District, Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Christian, McCurdy, Ingraham & Wold, Polson, Montana Donald Peterson argued, Polson, Montana For Respondent: Richard P. Heinz argued, County Attorney, Polson, Montana French and Grainey, Ronan, Montana Philip Grainey argued, Ronan, Montana Hood and Bradshaw, Missoula, Montana Randi M. Hood argued, Missoula, Montana Thomas Mahan, Helena, Montana

Submitted: April 13, 1977Mr. JusticeFrank I. Haswell delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Two couples filedcompeting petitions toadopt Darlene Rae Redcrow, about four yeard old, and an enrolledmember of the Confederated Salishand Kootenai Tribe. The districtcourt of Lake County, Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, districtjudge, granted
an adoption decree totheMeyer couple and the Rhodes couple appeal. The child involved had previously been removed from the home of her natural parents because of neglect. She was placed inthe home of appellants Rhodes for 23months untilNovember, 1975, when she was returned tothe home of her natural parents. Sixweeks 

### later Stateand Tribal authorities again found 

### it necessary toremove the child from her parental home because of neglect. She was then placed inthehome of respondents Meyer. On December 29, 1975, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services of the Stateof Montana (SRS) petitioned the districtcourt of Lake County tohave the child declared dependent and neglected and fortemporary custody. On February 27, 1976, appellants filed a petition for adoption with the written consent of the natural parents. On April 8, 1976, 

### respondents Meyer filedthispetition for adoption without the consent of thenatural parents. On April 

### 14, 1976, SRS amended 

### itspetition tocover permanent custody with rightof adoption rather than temporary custody. The three petitionswere consolidated and set for hearing
on May 12. The SRS and Meyer petitionswere continued for hearing toa laterdatetoallowclearingup of potential jurisdictional defects. The Rhodes petition was heard and taken under advisement pending hearings on the SRS and Meyer petitions and clearing up any question of consent by the Tribal court. On June 9 the SRS petition

### was heard atthe conclusion

### ofwhich the district court declared the child dependent and neglected and placed adoptive custody in SRS. The Meyer petitionwas heard on July 12 and taken under advisement. On August 11 the district court found both the appellants Rhodes and respondentsMeyer suitable parents for the adoption and granted the Meyer petition for adoption. Appellants Rhodes have appealed from this order. The single issue on appeal iswhether the district court abused its discretion in delaying determination of the Rhodes petition until after the hearing on the SRS and Meyer petitions. Appellants argue that since their adoption petition was jurisdictionally perfected, ready for hearing and heard prior to the other petitions it should have been decided first and granted, citing In reKoger, 206 Ore. 307, 292 P.2d 791. We hold the entire matter was properly treated as before the court from beginning to end. See State ex rel. Habeck v. Dist. Ct., 157 Mont. 231, 484 P.2d 272. Thedistrict courtwas entirely correct in hearing all aspects of the case before making any decision on the competing petitions. The court cannot be compelled to fragment the case because of different filing dates and readiness for hearing of the competing petitions. The court cannotbe forced to don blinders to other aspects of the case
on the theory that the early bird should catch the worm or its legal equivalent "Between rights otherwise equal,the earliest is 

### preferred." Section 49-117,R.C.M. 

### 1947. Theparamount consideration in deciding between the competing parties is what is in the best interests of the child. Adoption of Biery, 164 Mont. 353, 522 P.2d 1377. The district court's finding that both competing couples are suitableadoptive

### parents is not equivalent to a finding that eachwould equally promote the best interests of the child. We find no abuse of discretion of thedistrict court's determination. The order of the district court is affirmed.

Justice

Justices