Title: MILANOVICH v MILANOVICH
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-063
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 19, 1982

N o . 82-63 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 PJ3ILIP J. MILANOVICH, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- R O S E M A R Y J. MILANOVICH, Defendant and Respondent. leal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l District, I n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r Bow, The Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hull & Sherlock; J e f f r e y Sherlock, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Deirdre Caughlan, Butte, Montana Filed: Submitted on B r i e f s : June 3 , 1982 Decided: August 19, 1982 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s is an a p p e a l by t h e f a t h e r and a p p e l l a n t , P h i l i p J . Milanovich, from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l District, S i l v e r Bow County. T h i s a p p e a l d e a l s w i t h two main p o i n t s . The f i r s t being whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court h o l d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r w a s g u i l t y of contempt, and its imposi- t i o n of s a n c t i o n s on him is p r o p e r l y reviewable by t h i s Court on a p p e a l . The second p o i n t d e a l s w i t h whether t h e m o t h e r ' s v i s i t a - t i o n r i g h t s should have been modified or remained as they o r i g i - n a l l y were. The p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n were d i v o r c e d on November 7 , 1975. The mother was o r i g i n a l l y g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of t h e f o u r minor c h i l d r e n o n l y t h r e e of whom are s u b j e c t to t h i s a c t i o n , as t h e o l d e s t h a s reached t h e age of m a j o r i t y . On May 26, 1976, t h e p a r t i e s amended t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t and s e p a r a t i o n agreement, g i v i n g c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n to t h e f a t h e r . T h i s amendment a l s o provided f o r v i s i t a t i o n by t h e mother e v e r y summer f o r t h e month of J u l y and on a l t e r n a t e h o l i d a y s . Later on it was agreed by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e mother would be r e q u i r e d to g i v e t h i r t y d a y s n o t i c e p r i o r to a l l v i s i t a t i o n . The p a r t i e s were a g a i n b e f o r e t h e District Court i n October of 1979. A t t h a t t i m e , t h e C o u r t e n t e r e d an O r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e mother one-month's v i s i t a t i o n and s e t t i n g o u t h e r f u t u r e r i g h t t o have t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e month of J u l y each summer. T h i s o r d e r a l s o provided t h a t she c o u l d have t h e c h i l d r e n one weekend p e r month w i t h t h i r t y days n o t i c e and on t h e Christmas h o l i d a y . It f u r t h e r r e q u i r e d t h a t when t h e c h i l d r e n were v i s i t i n g , an i t i n e r a r y along w i t h a phone number and a d d r e s s where t h e c h i l d r e n could be reached w a s to be p r o v i d e d t o t h e f a t h e r . Apparently, d e s p i t e t h i s v e r y s p e c i f i c c o u r t o r d e r , t h e c h i l d r e n were n o t allowed to v i s i t t h e i r mother f o r C h r i s t m a s 1979. The p a r t i e s a g a i n amended t h e p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t i n 1981. T h i s amendment e x t i n g u i s h e d t h e f a t h e r ' s alimony o b l i g a t i o n . A t t h e same time t h i s amendment was f i l e d , a l e t t e r , s i g n e d by b o t h p a r t i e s , was f i l e d . It s t a t e d t h a t t h e mother waived h e r J u l y 1981 v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i n r e t u r n f o r being a b l e to accompany t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d r e n on a two-week summer v a c a t i o n to Canada. W r i t t e n i n t h e m o t h e r ' s handwriting immediately af t e r t h e typed body of t h e l e t t e r was a s e n t e n c e s t a t i n g t h a t t h e o t h e r t w o weeks v i s i t a t i o n i n J u l y were deemed o p t i o n a l , and depended on h e r d e c i s i o n . T h i s agreed j o i n t v i s i t a t i o n f e l l through. T h e r e is c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y as t o why. The mother claims t h a t t h e f a t h e r n o t i f i e d h e r of a change i n p l a n s , b u t l e f t on v a c a t i o n e a r l y and f a i l e d to l e a v e an a d d r e s s where s h e could meet he and t h e c h i l d r e n . The f a t h e r ' s s t o r y d i f f e r s . He claims t h e mother was informed of t h e change i n p l a n s and t h e new i t i n e r a r y s e v e r a l months i n advance. H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t she c a l l e d him one week p r i o r to t h e i r d e p a r t u r e s a y i n g t h a t t h e v a c a t i o n p l a n s were u n a c c e p t a b l e and wanting t o change t h e v i s t a t i o n to August. A f t e r t h i s j o i n t v i s i t a t i o n f e l l t h r o u g h , t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y , i n a l e t t e r d a t e d J u l y 2, 1981, i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e would e x e r c i s e h e r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s from August 3 to September 3 , 1981. The f a t h e r ' s response was t h a t t h i s w a s i n a p p r o p r i a t e as it was n o t i n accord w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r f i x i n g h e r summer r i g h t s of v i s t a t i o n from J u l y 1 to J u l y 31. On August 1 5 , 1981, t h e m o t h e r ' s a t t o r n e y f i l e d two motions. The f i r s t was a motion to compel v i s i t a t i o n and t h e o t h e r was a motion to hold t h e f a t h e r i n contempt f o r n o t complying w i t h t h e c o u r t o r d e r . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e f a t h e r , through h i s a t t o r n e y , f i l e d s e v e r a l motions. The f i r s t w a s a motion s e e k i n g mental e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e mother. The n e x t was a motion s e e k i n g to have h e r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s modified, t h e t h i r d s o u g h t appointment of an a t t o r n e y f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , and f i n a l l y t h e l a s t r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t to o r d e r p r o d u c t i o n of t h e m o t h e r ' s p s y c h i a t r i c r e c o r d s , The b a s i s f o r t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e s e motions was t h e m o t h e r ' s poor mental h e a l t h o v e r t h e last few y e a r s which r e s u l t e d i n h e r h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n s e v e r a l times. Hearing w a s h e l d i n t h e District Court on August 21, 1981, O c t o b e r 23, 1981, and O c t o b e r 28, 1981. A t t h e s e times t h e c o u r t h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y of b o t h p a r t i e s , i n t e r v i e w e d t h e c h i l d r e n i n chambers, and heard t h e t e s t i m o n y of p s y c h o l o g i s t D r . Kenneth Welt. During t h e c o u r t ' s c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n they a l l e x p r e s s e d t h e view t h a t v i s i t s w i t h t h e i r mother d i s r u p t e d t h e i r l i v e s and t h e y would p r e f e r n o t to see h e r . D r . W e l t also t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e caused t h e c h i l d r e n a n x i e t y t h a t could r e s u l t i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l and emotional harm. The District Court i s s u e d its o r d e r on February 1 6 , 1982. I n t h a t o r d e r t h e D i s t r i c t Court denied a l l of t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t i o n s , found him i n contempt of c o u r t , and based on t h a t f i n d i n g f i n e d him $500 and imposed a five-day suspended s e n t e n c e upon him. The District Court also awarded t h e mother a t t o r n e y f e e s and $736 i n costs, f o r lost wages and t r a v e l i n g and accm- modation expenses i n c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h i s a c t i o n . S e v e r a l i s s u e s have been r a i s e d on a p p e a l t h a t r e q u i r e t h i s C o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n : 1. May t h i s Court review t h e lower c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of con- tempt on a p p e a l ? 2. Did t h e District Court err when d e a l i n g w i t h m o d i f i c a t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t ' s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s by f a i l i n g to allow i n e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g to h e r p s y c h i a t r i c c o n d i t i o n ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n f a i l i n g to make f i n d i n g s as t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s wishes? 4 . Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n f a i l i n g to a p p o i n t an a t t o r n e y f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ? The f i r s t i s s u e is t h e s i m p l e s t to d e a l w i t h and s h a l l be d i s p o s e d of f i r s t . S e c t i o n 3-1-523, MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e judgment and o r d e r s of t h e District Court i n contempt cases are " f i n a l and c o n c l u s i v e , " and no a p p e a l may be t a k e n from them. The p r o p e r avenue to use to g a i n review of a contempt o r d e r , by t h i s C o u r t , is a w r i t of certiorari. T h i s Court, i n t h e p a s t , h a s r e f u s e d to c o n s i d e r matters of contempt on d i r e c t appeal based on s e c t i o n 3-1-523, MCA. O ' N e i l l v. O ' N e i l l ( 1 9 7 9 ) f Mont . , 603 P.2d 257, 36 St.Rep. 2154; I n t h e Matter of Gordons E s t a t e ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - - Mon t . , 628 P.2d 1117, 38 St.Rep. 887 and w i l l a g a i n do so i n t h i s case. I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s of p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n it must be remembered t h a t such r i g h t s are merely i n c i d e n t s of c u s t o d y o r d e r s , I n R e t h e Marriage of Adamson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - - Colo. , 626 P.2d 739, and t h e r e f o r e t h e same p r i n c i p l e s a p p l y to v i s i t a t i o n as are a p p l i c a b l e t o custody. I n c o n s i d e r i n g a m o d i f i c a t i o n of v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , t h e c o u r t must c o n s i d e r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d a c c o r d i n g to s e c t i o n 40-4-217(3) MCA. T h i s Court i n Firman v. ~ i r m a n (198O)r ---- Mont . ---- , 610 P.2d 178, 37 St.Rep. 888, h e l d t h a t t h e best i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d is paramount i n any proceeding concerning t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of a p a r e n t w i t h t h e i r c h i l d . The concept of b e s t i n t e r e s t is d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, which s t a t e s : "The c o u r t s h a l l d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y i n accor- d a n c e w i t h t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n c l u d i n g : " ( 1 ) t h e w i s h e s of t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t or p a r e n t s as to h i s c u s t o d i a n ; " ( 2 ) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d as to h i s c u s t o d i a n ; " ( 3 ) t h e i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e c h i l d w i t h h i s p a r e n t or p a r e n t s , h i s s i b l i n g s , and any o t h e r p e r s o n who may s i g n i - f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t ; " ( 4 ) t h e c h i l d ' s a d j u s t m e n t to h i s home, s c h o o l and community; and, " ( 5 ) t h e mental and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved." The District C o u r t i n making its d e c i s i o n i n t h i s case a p p e a r s to have ignored c e r t a i n of t h e f a c t o r s . I t based its d e c i s i o n on p r i o r agreements and d e a l i n g s between t h e p a r e n t s , as is evidenced by its f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. I n r e n d e r i n g its d e c i s i o n t h e c o u r t is o b l i g a t e d to c o n s i d e r t h e mental h e a l t h of a l l t h e p a r t i e s involved under s e c t i o n 40-4-212(5), MCA, b u t i n t h e p r e s e n t case it d i d n o t do so as it r e f u s e d t o a l l o w i n p s y c h i a t r i c e v i d e n c e p e r t a i n i n g to t h e mother, i n t h e form of c e r t i f i e d h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s from L a s Vegas, Nevada, and t h e t e s t i m o n y of a p s y c h i a t r i s t who had examined t h e mother i n 1979. A p r i o r d e c i s i o n of t h i s Court r e f l e c t s t h i s p o s i t i o n also. I n S c h i e l e v , Sager ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 533, 571 P.2d 1142, t h e Court h e l d t h a t e v i d e n c e which would be r e l e v a n t i n a f f e c t i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of a c h i l d w i t h t h e c u s t o d i a n is a d m i s s i b l e . The District Court also f a i l e d to c o n s i d e r t h e w i s h e s of t h e c h i l d r e n as is mandated under s e c t i o n 40-4-212(2), MCA. D e s p i t e t h e c o u r t ' s in-chambers i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e s e c h i l d r e n , i n which each c h i l d states t h e y d i d n o t wish to v i s i t w i t h t h e mother, no f i n d i n g s were made as to t h e i r wishes or why t h e y were n o t followed as is r e q u i r e d under o u r p r i o r d e c i s i o n s . Kaasa v. Kaasa (1979) , 1 8 1 Mont. 1 8 , 591 P.2d 1110; Kramer v. Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 61, 580 P.2d 439. The District Court also f a i l e d to c o n s i d e r t h e o n l y pro- f e s s i o n a l t e s t i m o n y o f f e r e d by e i t h e r s i d e r e g a r d i n g what was i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s best i n t e r e s t . D r . Kenneth W e l t , a c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t i n B u t t e , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p r e s e n t v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e could be harmful to t h e c h i l d r e n ' s mental h e a l t h due to t h e higher-than-normal d e g r e e of a n x i e t y t h e v i s i t s caused. H e recommended t h a t v i s i t a t i o n be modified s o t h a t it would t a k e p l a c e i n a s a f e environment where t h e c h i l d r e n would f e e l c l o s e t o t h e i r f a t h e r and w i t h which t h e y had some f a m i l i a r i t y . The c o u r t made no r e f e r e n c e t o t h i s t e s t i m o n y o r why it d i d n o t a c c e p t it i n its judgment. I t merely proceeded to r e n d e r its d e c i s i o n based on t h e agreements of t h e p a r e n t s , which is n o t t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d where c h i l d r e n are concerned. The c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t is paramount i n t h o s e type of cases and s h o u l d be t h e b a s i s f o r any d e c i s i o n , as p o i n t e d o u t i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n above. The f o u r t h and f i n a l i s s u e to be addressed a t t h i s t i m e is t h e District C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of a motion f o r appointment of any a t t o r n e y f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , d e s p i t e s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o do so under s e c t i o n 40-4-205, MCA. The Court h a s set down t h e r u l e r e g a r d i n g court-appointed a t t o r n e y s for c h i l d r e n i n a p r i o r case where w e s t a t e d : " [TI he r u l e is t h a t appointment of counsel is o n l y n e c e s s a r y when t h e c h i l d needs an advo- cate to r e p r e s e n t h i s p o s i t i o n as to t h e i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e or to i n s u r e t h e development o f an a d e q u a t e l y complete r e c o r d concerning t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . " I n t h e Matter of I n q u i r y i n t o JJS Youth I n Need of Care ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 176 Mont. 202, 577 P.2d 378, 381. I n t h i s c a s e t h e c h i l d r e n d i d n o t need anyone to r e p r e s e n t t h e i r p o s i t i o n as t o t h e i s s u e s i n d i s p u t e , because t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s in-chambers i n t e r v i e w a d e q u a t e l y developed t h e i r p o s i t i o n . But i n a d e q u a t e l y and c o m p l e t e l y developing a r e c o r d , i n r e g a r d s t o t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d r e n , an a t t o r n e y is n e c e s s a r y i n t h e p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n . The p a r t i e s t o t h i s pro- c e e d i n g a r e e m b i t t e r e d a g a i n s t one a n o t h e r as t h e District Court s o a c c u r a t e l y p o i n t s o u t i n its f i n d i n g s of f a c t no. 1 0 where it states, " [TI h i s is t h e most d i f f i c u l t c a s e of d i v o r c e t h i s judge h a s experienced." T h i s type of s i t u a t i o n can cause each p a r t y to p r e s e n t a s e l f - s e r v i n g view of t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t . I n s u c h a s i t u a t i o n , independent c o u n s e l should be a p p o i n t e d f o r t h e c h i l d r e n to e n s u r e a f u l l and f a i r development of what would be i n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t . While t h i s a p p e a l was i n p r o g r e s s , Rosemary f i l e d through h e r a t t o r n e y a motion i n t h i s Court to compel P h i l i p to perform a v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r of t h e District Court d a t e d February 1 6 , 1982. Rosemary w a s to have temporary c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d r e n b e g i n n i n g J u l y 1, 1982. Rosemary alleges t h e v i s i t a t i o n was d e n i e d by P h i l i p . Exact performance of t h e v i s i t a t i o n o r d e r cannot now be com- p e l l e d because of t h e passage of t i m e . However, t h e mother on t h i s r e c o r d should be c o n s i d e r e d f i t to have temporary c u s t o d y of h e r c h i l d r e n w i t h o u t i n t e r f e r e n c e from P h i l i p . W e t h e r e f o r e deny t h e motion t o compel performance by P h i l i p , b u t we i n s t r u c t t h e District Court, i f t h e p a r t i e s d o n o t a g r e e on immediate v i s i t a - tioc for the mother upoc remittitur from t h i s Court to so provide. W e further direct the D i s t r i c t Court to fix acd allow attorcey fees acd costs to be paid by Philip to Rosemary i ~ c u r r e d i c coccectior! with her motior!, i c additioc to whatever other r e l i e f or order the ~ i s t r i c t Court may make ie t h i s facet of the case. Based or? our h o l d i ~ g s or? the above issues, PO other issues raised by coucsel for the respective parties peed be co~sidered a t t h i s time. The judgmert of the District Court, with the exceptioc of its coctempt holdicg is reversed acd remacded for a Pew h e a r i ~ g , to be cocducted ic accorda~ce w i t h t h i s o p i ~ i o r ! . / , ' / Justice , ' We concur: