No. 86-359 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1987

INRE THEMARRIAGE OF JAMES EERNAPD PREVOST, Petitioner and Respondent, and DENA KAY PREVOST, Respondent and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventh JudicialDistrict, In and for the County of Richland, TheHonorable H. R. Obert, Judgepresid-ing.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
ForAppellant: T. R. Halvorson, Sidney,Montana
For Respondent: PhillipN. Carter, Sidney,Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Oct. 20, 1986 i Decided: January 13, 1987Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Richland. County, modifying visitation between two parents and their children. The mother appeals the order. We affirm. The issuesraised are as follows: 1. Does the absence of a verbatim record necessitate reversaland remand? 2. Does the absence of findings of fact showinghow the order is in the best interests of the children necessitate reversaland remand? 3. Is weekend visitation between the father and daughter without weekend visitation between the mother and son in the best interestsof the children? 4. Is summer visitation between the fatherand daughter in 1986 without the possibility of summer visitation between the mother and son in the sameyear in the best interests of the children? The parties were divorced in 1985. They had two daughters and a son. The mother was granted custody of the two daughters and the fatherwas granted custody of the son. Each was granted "reasonable" visitation with the child or children not in their custody. In June, 1986, the father filed a motion to modify visitation privileges. The court held a hearing and heard testimony from the mother and the father on visitation. No transcript of this hearing was made. The court issued an order granting the father visitation with onedaughter as follows:
a. Two weekends per month, beginning at 7:00 o'clock P.M. on Friday and ending at 7:00 o'clock P.M. on Sunday night. This particular visitation shall be modified if the petitioner is not at thehome of the respondent by 9:00 o'clock P.M. on the Friday night. If he is not, his visitation will not start until 9:00 olcl.ockon Saturday morning. b. On alternating holidays, which, for this purpose, shallbe defined as New Year's Day,Easter Sunday, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas ~ve/ChristmasDay.
c. For six continuous weeks in the summer. This period of time shallbe the sixweeks at the end of the summer and just prior to the child beginning school. Hewas grantedvisitation with the otherdaughter at all times and places that she desires. The mother was granted visitation with her son as follows:
a. Six weeks in the summer. This period shallbe during thebeginning of the summer vacationperiod, just after schoolhas letout. b. Alternating holidays,which are defined as the same as those a.bove. The ordermodifying visitation was signed by the judge, then there was a notation "APPROVED as to content and form:" and the order was signed by the attorney for petitioner and the attorney for respondent. The issue on appeal is actually whether the order in questionwas truly an orderwhich may be appealed orwhether it is a stipulationby both parties that was adopted by the court. Since both parties, through their attorneys signed the order,we hold that the documentwas a stipulationwhich
was adopted by the court. "It is improper to raise an issue upon appeal as to a question of lawor fact after the parties have entered into a stipulation as to that law or fact.'' Pennv. BurlingtonNorthern, Inc. (1980),185Mont. 223, 228, 605 P.2d 600, 604. We hold the first three issues on appeal have not been properly raised because appellantagreed to the term of the modified visitation order. We hold the lastissue is moot because the visitation for the summer of 1986 has already occurred. Affirmed.

We Concur: l