No. 12133 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1972 

IN THE 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: MAR 6 - ?m 
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court 

of the sixteenth judicial district, county of Prairie, declaring 

four children of Wilma Jean Corneliusen to be dependent and 

neglected children, and awarding custody, care and control 

to the State Welfare 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 she received a high 

school education. Sometime after graduation from high school 

in South Dakota in 1959, she appeared in a Montana welfare 

office seeking aid as an unwed mother. At that time she was 

given help and advice and released her child for adoption. 

She married one Larry Corneliusen in 1961, and two children were 

born of this marriage, Marilyn born in 1962, and Dennis born 

in 1963. In 1964 Larry Corneliusen abandoned his wife and two 

children; he has not been heard from since. 

At the time of the hearing in April 1971, the Corneliusens 

were not divorced. Subsequent to 1964 Wilma 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 to Dependent Children funds from the Division 

of Child Welfare Services of the Department of Public Welfare 

of the State of Montana, to support her children. It further 

indicates that she had an alcoholic problem and was known by 

the welfare and law officers as being promiscuous. Evidence 
introduced at the hearing indicated that the monthly Aid to 

Dependent Children checks were used partially to supply her 

alcoholic needs 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 she hated some of the children and threatened 

to kill the youngest. The local welfare officers worked constantly with Wilma Jean but finally concluded in view 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 1 children. 

Wilma Jean Corneliusen appeals from the order of the 

district court 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 the judgment of April 9, 1971, giving respondent 

welfare department the right of adoption? 

3. Should the district court have allowed the appellant 

more time to straighten out her emotional problems? 

Appellant concedes that the children are "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 the Matter of Vikse, 147 Mont. 417, 420, 413 P.2d 876, she 

argues that this Court should liberally interpret the term 

'heglec ted child". 

Recognizing, as we must, that this is an impoverished 

family, this does not mean the mother can use such impoverishment 
as a shield to hide behind in the neglect of her children 

when her very acts deprived the children of attention and 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 in Vikse 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 trial judge in the instant 

case. We find no merit to appellant's Issue 1 for the evidence 

shows both "dependent" and "neglectedr' children. 

We will combine Issues 2 and 3 for discussion for if 

Issue 3 were favorably decided for the appellant, it would 

of necessity set aside 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 for all concerned 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 district court is correct. The duty of deciding controversy over the rights to custody of children is a delicate 

one, lodged with the district court. The decision of that 

court should not be disturbed except upon a clear showing of 

an abuse of discretion. Ex parte Bourguin, 88 Mont. 118, 290 

P. 250; In re Thompson, 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 to grow and mature normally, 

while hopefully waiting for the mother to straighten out her 

emotiona.1 problems? We think not. Children, particularly 

children d the ages herein involved, must have permanent relationships in order that they may establish a sense of identity. 

Without such relationships they may well become emotionally 

disturbed. Were it not for Mrs. Bond of the Welfare Department and good neighbors who have all worked long and hard 

trying to help appellant, these children might be facing far 

more grievous problems than they have at the present time. 

The district court after hearing all of the testimony 

and talking with the two older children, decided that time 

had run out for appellant; that the children's best interests 

required they no longer wait for appellant to do something to 

stablize her emotional life. We agree with the district 

court's decision to put all the children in the custody of 

the Welfare Department of the State of Montana, with the right 

of adoption. 

There being no abuse of discretion, the judgment is 

affirmed . 
Associate Justices 

4 Hon. Jack Shanstrom, District 

Judge, sitting for Associate 

Justice Wesley Castles.