No. 12133 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1972

INTHE MATTER OF DECURING: MARILYN LYNN CORNELIUSEN, DENNIS LEWIS CORNELIUSEN, DEWAYNE ALVIN CORNELIUSEN, and CLINTON SHANE CORNELIUSEN, Dependent and Neglected Children.

Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant

### : Francis J. McCarvel argued, Glendive, Montana. For Respondent: Hone Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,

Montana. Cecil N. Brown, Countyi-'Attorney,argued, Terry,

Montana.

Submitted: February 15, 1972 Decided: 

## MAR

## 6

# - 19~

Filed: 

## MAR6

# -

# ?mMr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This 

### is an appeal from an order of the district court of the sixteenthjudicial district, county of Prairie, declaring four children of Wilma Jean Corneliusen tobe dependent and neglected children, and awarding custody, careand control tothe StateWelfare Department. Wilma Jean Corneliusen, the mother of the four children, 

### is a 32 year old woman of Indian heritage. Her early life

was spent in a Catholic convent where shereceived a high school education. Sometime after graduation from high school in South Dakota in 1959, she appeared ina Montana welfare office seeking aid as an unwed mother. Atthat time shewas givenhelp and advice and released her child for adoption. She married one Larry Corneliusen in 1961, and two childrenwere born of this marriage, Marilyn born in 1962, and Dennis born in 1963. In 1964Larry Corneliusen abandoned his wife and two children; he has not been heard from since. Atthe time of the hearing inApril 1971, the Corneliusens

were not divorced. Subsequent to 1964Wilma Jean has had two

more children, Dewayne Alvin born September 26, 1969, and Clinton Shane born August 26, 1970. These two children have different fathers

# . The transcript reveals that from July 1964, Wilma Jean has relied upon Aid toDependent Children funds from theDivision of Child Welfare Services of the Department of Public Welfare of the Stateof Montana, to support her children. It further indicates that shehad an alcoholic problem and was known by thewelfare and law officers as being promiscuous. Evidenceintroduced atthehearing indicated that the monthly Aid to Dependent Children checks were used partially to supply her alcoholicneeds and did not entirely go for the care of her children. Considerable evidence was produced indicating dependency and neglect of the four children, including statements made by Wilma Jean that shehated some of the childrenand threatened tokillthe youngest. The local welfare officers worked constantlywithWilma Jean but finally concluded inview of her threats to the lives of one or more of the children, that they should be removed from her and placed where they would have an opportunity to develop a~,~norma 1children. Wilma Jean Corneliusen appeals from the order of the districtcourt and raises three issues for consideration: 

### 1. Were the minor children of appellant "neglected" within the meaning of section 10-501, R.C.M. 1947? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in issuing thejudgment of April 9, 1971, giving respondent welfare department the right of adoption? 

### 3. Should the district court have allowed the appellant

more time tostraighten out her emotional problems? Appellant concedes that the childrenare "dependent" children within the meaning of section 10-501, R.C.M. 1947, for the record shows the family has been dependent on public assistance since 1964, but, relying upon this court's decision In theMatter of 

### Vikse, 147 Mont. 417, 420, 413 P.2d 876, she argues that this Court should liberally interpret the term 'heglected child". Recognizing, aswe must, that this 

### is an impoverished family, this does not mean the mother can use such impoverishmentas

### a shield tohide behind intheneglect of her children when her very acts deprived the children of attentionand care. Misuse of welfare funds, lack of medical care and failure to properly pro~ide within the funds allocated clearly revea

### 1 neglect of her children. Justice Castles inVikse said: 

## "*

# ** 'neglected childf 

### is a broader term than 'dependent child'

# . The former describes a parental failure to exercise the degree of care demanded by family circumstances. It concerns disregard of parental duty whether intentional or unintentional.If That 

### is the very case presented the trialjudge in the instant

case. We find no merit toappellant's Issue 1for the evidence shows both "dependent" and "neglectedr' children. We willcombine Issues 2 and 3 for discussion for if Issue 

### 3 were favorably decided for the appellant, it would of necessity setaside Issue 

### 2. It has been written many times, as often as this type of case comes before a court, that such cases are traumatic and distressing forallconcerned and present perplexing problems for decision. No matter what conclusion 

### is reached, it 

### is inevitable that heartaches, misery and despair

### will result. Here, we begin with the presumption that the decision of the districtcourt 

### is correct. The duty of deciding controversy over the rights tocustody of children 

### is a delicate one, lodged with the districtcourt. The decision of that court should not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Ex parte Bourguin, 88Mont. 118, 290 P. 250; In reThompson, 

### 77 Mont. 466, 251 P. 163. 

### It was the 

### trial court's duty, and ours too, to concern ourselves with the best interests and welfare of the children.Here, the two older children are of early school age and experiences with their mother has left them insecure, troubled and frightened. Can they continue togrow and mature normally, while hopefully waiting for the mother tostraighten out her emotiona.1problems? We thinknot. Children, particularly children

### d the ages herein involved, must have permanent relationships in order that they may establisha sense of identity. Without such relationships they may well become emotionally disturbed. Were it not for

### Mrs. Bond of theWelfare Department and good neighbors who have allworked long and hard trying tohelp appellant, these children might be facing far

more grievous problems than they have atthe present time. The district court afterhearing allof the testimony and talking with the two older children, decided that time had run out forappellant; that the children's best interests required they no longer wait forappellant todo something to stablizeher emotional life. We agreewith the district court's decision toput allthe children in the custody of theWelfare Department of the State of Montana, with the right of adoption. There being no abuse of discretion, thejudgment 

### is affirmed

# .Associate Justices 

# 4 Hon. Jack Shanstrom, District Judge, sitting for Associate Justice Wesley Castles.