Title: FLATHEAD CO WELFARE DEPT v ENDRE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12740
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 8, 1975

No. 12740 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A F L A T H E A D COUNTY W E L F A R E DEPARTMENT, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, MELISSA E 1 4 D R E S and PETER JASON ENDRES, Dependent and neglected children, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Sykes , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants : McGarvey, Morrison, Hedman & Moore, Kalispell, Montana James D. Moore argued, Kalispell, Montana Leonard Kaufman, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondent: H. James Oleson argued, Kalispell, Montana Submitted: January 21, 1975 Decided : APR - 8 1975 F i l e d : A ~ ~ = 8 1975 Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Flathead County. From t h e record it appears t h a t on August 19, 1972, Melissa and Peter Endres, then aged four and one-half years and nine months respectively, were taken by t h e i r mother, M r s . Sherrie Endres, t o t h e home of t h e i r g r e a t uncle and aunt, M r . and Mrs. Thomas Torgerson of Olney. A t t h i s t i m e t h e parents, W i l l i a m and Sherrie Endres, were experiencing a period of m a r i t a l i n s t a b i l i t y . I n addition, t h e f a t h e r had been disabled i n an i n d u s t r i a l accident and was experiencing d i f f i c u l t y i n supporting h i s family, since he had not y e t received compensa- t i o n from h i s pending Workmen's Compensation claim. Sherrie made t h r e e subsequent attempts t o r e t r i e v e t h e children from t h e Torgerson home. This apparently prompted the Torgersons t o contact t h e Flathead County Welfare Department as a s t e p toward i n s t i t u t i o n of t h e present a c t i o n . A p e t i t i o n f o r "temporary custody" w a s f i l e d on December 7, 1972, by Reuben Wilbur, a s o c i a l worker with t h e Flathead County Welfare Department. The p e t i t i o n alleged t h e children w e r e dependent and neglected a s t o S h e r r i e Endres. N o mention was made i n t h e p e t i t i o n regarding permanent custody, nor of t h e f a t h e r , William Endres. O n t h e same 2 a t e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , without n o t i c e t o t h e parents o r an opportunity f o r them t o be heard, issued an order awarding temporary custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e Welfare Department and an order t o show cause, d i r e c t e d t o Sherrie, why t h e children should not be declared dependent and neglected. A t t h e show cause hearing on January 23, 1973, t h e f a t h e r , Killiam Endres, d i d not appear. The p e t i t i o n did not name him and he, therefore, had not been served. Thereafter, William Endres was served w i t h a c i t a t i o n d i r e c t i n g him t o appear t o show c a u s e why t h e c h i l d r e n should n o t be d e c l a r e d dependent and neglected. The next h e a r i n g took p l a c e on A p r i l 11, 1973. Both p a r e n t s w e r e p r e s e n t , a l t h o u g h without a s s i s t a n c e of counsel. By o r d e r d a t e d A p r i l 11, 1973, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ordered t h e h e a r i n g continued t o November 1 3 , 1973; ordered t h e D i v i s i o n o f Child Welfare S e r v i c e s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p a r e n t s and submit a r e p o r t p r i o r t o November 1, 1973, w i t h power t o recommend adop- t i o n ; and f u r t h e r ordered t h e Children t o remain f o r t h e next s i x months i n t h e custody o f t h e Division of Child Welfare Ser- v i c e s . The Missoula County Department of P u b l i c Welfare f i l e d i t s "Report t o t h e Court" on October 31, 1973. The r e p o r t s t a t e d t h e r e s u l t s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e p a r e n t s . I t d i d n o t recomnend adoption nor a permanent custody arrangement, b u t mere- l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n n o t be r e t u r n e d t o t h e i r p a r e n t s a t t h i s t i m e . The hearing scheduled f o r iqovember 13, 1973, was continued u n t i l November 29, 1373, because t h e p a r e n t s had n o t been served with t h e "Report t o t h e Court". A t t h e f i n a l hearing on November 29, 1973, t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h e i s s u e s t o be r e s o l v e d were whether t h e r e q u e s t of t h e Welfare Department f o r permanent custody should be g r a n t e d and whether William Endres should be found t o have neglected t h e c h i l d r e n . A t t h i s h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t c o n t i n u a l l y r e f e r r e d t o it a s one f o r t h e r e s o l u t i o n of permanent custody of t h e c h i l d r e n . William Endres was n o t p r e s e n t a t t h i s h e a r i n g although he w a s r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel. Based upon a l l t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d , t h e c o u r t found William Endres g u i l t y of n e g l e c t i n g h i s c h i l d r e n . A t t h e conclusion of t h e h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t awarded permanent custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e Welfare Department w i t h f u l l a u t h o r i t y t o adopt. William and S h e r r i e Endres p r e s e n t many i s s u e s on appeal. This opinion w i l l primarily be d i r e c t e d t o t h e resolu- t i o n of t h e i s s u e which we f i n d t o be determinative of t h i s appeal: Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n granting permanent custody t o t h e Welfare Department although no p e t i t i o n f o r permanent custody of t h e c h i l d r e n had ever been f i l e d by t h e Welfare Department? W e hold t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d . The p e t i t i o n f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , which prayed t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t make an order d e c l a r i n g Melissa and P e t e r Endres dependent and neglected c h i l d r e n , w a s a p r i n t e d form. Typed i n one of t h e blanks of t h e form was t h e statement: " W e request temporary custody * * *." Section 93-401-19, R.C.M. 1947, d i r e c t s t h a t w r i t t e n words c o n t r o l those of a p r i n t e d form. Therefore, t h e p e t i t i o n was f o r temporary custody. O n s e v e r a l occasions a t t h e A p r i l 11 hearing, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o l d t h e parents t h a t t h i s was a matter respecting temporary custody and t h a t t h e Welfare Department had not f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r perman- e n t custody. I n i t s f i n a l "Report t o t h e Court", t h e Welfare Department d i d not ask f o r permanent custody, but merely t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n not be returned t o t h e p a r e n t s a t t h a t t i m e . I n Crenshaw v . Crenshaw, 120 Mont. 190, 202, 182 P.2d 477, t h e complaint sought a decree of s e p a r a t e maintenance. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , however, granted a decree of divorce with- o u t ever amending t h e complaint. This Court reversed s t a t i n g : " I t i s elementary t h a t proof without pleadings w i l l not s u s t a i n a decree." That case is analogous t o t h e i n s t a n t one. William Endres contends t h e r e was e r r o r i n t h a t h i s name was never placed upon t h e p e t i t i o n . The p e t i t i o n r e f e r s t o t h e p a r e n t s a s "Sherrie Endres and unknown". I n l i g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t W i l l i a m Endres was served with a c i t a t i o n t o appear f o r t h e April 1 1 hearing, t h e f a i l u r e t o p h y s i c a l l y i n s c r i b e h i s name on t h e p e t i t i o n was harmless e r r o r . The Endres' a l l e g e e r r o r i n t h a t t h e Welfare Depart- ment d i d not comply with t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 10-506, R.C.M. 1974, s i n c e repealed, which required t h e Welfare Department t o f i l e with t h e c o u r t a r e p o r t of t h e f i n a n c i a l a b i l i t y of t h e parents. This f a i l u r e t o f i l e a r e p o r t of t h e p a r e n t s ' finan- c i a l a b i l i t y i s harmless e r r o r . The purpose of t h e f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t required by s e c t i o n 10-506 was t o determine t h e a b i l i t y of t h e p a r e n t s t o pay t h e c o s t of taking c a r e of such c h i l d i n a f o s t e r home. Here, no order was made respecting t h e c o s t of taking c a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n i n a f o s t e r home. The Endres' f u r t h e r contend t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o comply with s e c t i o n 10-508, R.C.M. 1947, s i n c e re- pealed, which provided: "On such hearing o r examination, t h e c h i l d s h a l l be brought before s a i d c o u r t , whereupon it s h a l l be t h e duty of s a i d c o u r t t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e f a c t s and a s c e r t a i n whether s a i d c h i l d i s a dependent c h i l d , its residence, and, a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e , t h e whereabouts of t h e p a r e n t s , guardian, o r n e a r e s t a d u l t r e l a t i v e s ; when and how long t h e c h i l d has been maintained, i n whole o r i n p a r t , by public o r p r i v a t e c h a r i t y ; t h e occupation of t h e p a r e n t s , i f l i v i n g ; whether they a r e supported by t h e p u b l i c , o r have abandoned t h e i r c h i l d ; and t o a s c e r t a i n , a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e , i f t h e c h i l d i s found dependent, t h e cause t h e r e o f . * * * " W e f i n d no e r r o r . True, t h e c h i l d r e n were not brought before t h e c o u r t , however, no objection t o t h i s was ever made. F a i l u r e t o o b j e c t c o n s t i t u t e s waiver. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h e p a r e n t s g u i l t y of neglecting t h e i r c h i l d r e n , not t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were dependent o r abandoned. While t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t made no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s with r e s p e c t t o t h e remaining f a c t s t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d , those f a c t s appear i n t h e record. Because of t h e l a c k of due process t h e c o u r t was without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make and e n t e r its order dated November 2 9 , 1973. The cause is reversed and remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings . . not i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: J t i c e s 0