Title: IN RE CANTRELL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12135
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: March 20, 1972

No. 12135 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 I N T H E M A T T E R O F DECLARING M E R L E E A R L W I N CbNTRELL (also known a s Merle Earlwin Savior) A D E P E N D E N T AND N E G L E C T E D CHILD. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Thomas Dignan, Judge presiding . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Robert L. LaRoche argued, Wolf Point, Montana. For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Gordon White, County Attorney, Glasgow, Montana. Thomas Mahan argued, Helena, Montana. Submitted: March 13, 1972 Decided 'MfiR 2 1 5972 - 3 Filed :JI/LR 2 !!?I-(- M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from an order dated May 21, 1971, by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of the seventeenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Valley County, the Hon. Thomas Dignan, presiding. The a p p e l l a n t i s a 22 year old unwed mother of an i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d . The order appealed from reads: "This matter coming on t o be heard January 25, 1971, upon t h e p e t i t i o n of Joseph H. Roe, t h e duly appointed, a u a l i f i e d , and a c t i n g Director of the Division of Child Welfare Services of the Department of Public Welfare of t h e S t a t e of Montana, f o r and on behalf df t h e above named c h i l d , a t which time t h e r e appeared i n Court Marveen Savior, mother of s a i d c h i l d , with Robert LaRoche, her counsel, and Wayne James C a n t r e l l , f a t h e r of s a i d c h i l d , t o show cause, i f any they had, why the s a i d Merle Earlwin C a n t r e l l (also known a s Merle Earlwin Savior) should not be declared a dependent and neglected c h i l d , and awarded t o the c a r e , custody, and c o n t r o l of t h e Division of Child Welfare Services of t h e Department of Public Welfare of t h e S t a t e of Montana, a s prayed f o r i n s a i d p e t i t i o n ; "Whereupon, witnesses were duly sworn and examined on behalf of t h e p e t i t i o n e r , and testimony being $iven by the parents of s a i d c h i l d , t h e Court took s a i d matter under advisement, and continued s a i d matter from time t o time t o determine whether s a i d Marveen Savior, mother of s a i d c h i l d , could make arrangements f o r a s u i t a b l e home and adequate c a r e and supervision of s a i d c h i l d ; and upon a f u r t h e r hearing of s a i d matter before the Court on May 21, 1971, a d d i t i o n a l testimony was offered i n behalf of t h e P e t i t i o n e r , and the Court being advised i n t h e premises and upon due proof finds: hat t h e s a i d Merle Earlwin C a n t r e l l ( a l s o known a s Merle Earlwin Savior) is a minor c h i l d , who was born January 26, 1969, a t Poplar, Montana, and is a dependent and neglected c h i l d within the meaning of Section 10-501, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, and he i s a c h i l d of t h e s a i d Marveen Savior and Wayne James C a n t r e l l , and t h a t h i s best i n t e r e s t s w i l l be served by declaring him t o be a dependent and neglected c h i l d under the laws of the S t a t e of Montana and awarding him t o t h e c a r e , custody, and c o n t r o l of t h e Division of Child Welfare Services of t h e Department of Public Welfare of t h e S t a t e of Montana, and t h e Director o r any worker thereof, with lawful a u t h o r i t y t o appear i n Court and consent t o h i s adoption. "WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, t h a t the s a i d Merle Earlwin Cantrell (also known a s Merle Earlwin Savior) is a dependent and neglected child and t h a t he be and he is hereby awarded t o the care, custody, and control of the Division of t h e Child Welfare Services of the Department o i Public Welfare o t the S t a t e of Montana, o r the d i r e c t o r o r any worker thereof; "IT IS F U R T H E R ORDERED, t h a t the said Director or any worker of t h e said Division of Child Welfare Services of the Department o t Public Welfare of the S t a t e of Montana is hereby authorized t o appear i n any court where adoption proceedings a r e pending, and assent t o the adoption of the said Merle Earlwin Cantrell (also known a s Merle Earlwin Savior) ." The foregoing order of May 21, 1971, r e c i t e s some of the f a c t s and particularly r e f e r s t o the period from January 25, 1971, t o May 21, 1971, during which time a further deter- mination of arrangements f o r care by the mother was examined. A t t h e hearing on May 21, 1971, the mother did not appear i n court, although she had notice, Her counsel did appear. A year previous, on May 18, 1970, the same court made an order f o r temporary custody which recited: I I It appearing t o the Court t h a t Merle Earlwin Savior, a male child born January 26, 1969, a t Poplar, Montana, is a dependent and neglected child within the meaning or the Revised Codes of Montana, 1947, i n t h a t the child was found wandering around on the Burlington Northern Empire Builder west bound t r a i n a t Glasgow, Valley County, Montana, on May 18, 1970, without any supervision or care, and t h a t s a i d child was then and there suffering from neglect by the putative f a t h e r , Wayne James Cantrell, i n t h a t said Wayne James Cantrell was i n a drunken stupor ; tha t i n consequence whereof, the Department of Public Welfare of Valley County, Montana, was called t o assume the care and control of said minor child; t h a t s a i d c h i l d has a very serious c l e f t palate, and is suffering from a s l i g h t cold; t h a t the mother of said c h i l d , whose given name is unknown, but whose surname is believed t o be Savior (or Xavier) and is believed t o reside a t Wolf Point, Montana; t h a t by reason of neglect, abuse, and i n a b i l i t y on the part of the c h i l d ' s parents t o care properly and adequately f o r the said c h i l d a s t o warrant the Department of Public Welfare of Valley County, Montana, i n the i n t e r e s t of t h e s a i d child, t o assume immediate temporary care, cus- tody, and control of the s a i d minor c h i l d , and it further appearing t o the Court t h a t a p e t i t i o n t o declare said child dependent and neglected within the meaning of Section 10-501, R.C.M., may be f i l e d shortly herein and t h a t the Court deems it t o be i n t h e best i n t e r e s t of s a i d child t h a t the Department of Public Welfare of V a l l e y County, Montana, take immediate temporary care, and custody of said child pending the hearing a s pro- vided by law; "NOW, THEREFORE, I T IS O R D E R E D t h a t immediate temporary care and custody of said child be given t o the Department of Public Welfare, Valley County, Montana, u n t i l the further order of the Court." O n t h a t same day, May 18, 1970, Wayne James Cantrell, the putative father was charged i n j u s t i c e court i n Valley County with w i l l f u l neglect of a minor c h i l d , a misdemeanor. O n May 19, 1970, Cantrell pleaded g u i l t y and received a suspended sen- t enc e. The child was found abandoned and helpless i n Valley County, not on an Indian reservation. Section 10-503, R.C.M. 1947, provides for procedure i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The child had been placed by its mother in the care of a babysitter on May 15, 1970. Prior t o t h e mother's return, the putative father took the child. Some three days l a t e r , on May 18, 1970, the father took the child from the reservation with the intention of going t o Idaho by t r a i n . The journey was short- lived. The Valley County Welfare Department took the child from i t s helpless position with its intoxicated father and placed it i n a f o s t e r home. Prior t o these events, i n 1969, the same child had been taken from the mother's custody by order of t h e Tribal Court of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation on the grounds of parenta 1 neg- l e c t , and sometime i n early 1970, had been returned t o i t s mother. In t h e period of time from May 1970, t o January 1971, and on t o May 1971, the mother made almost no e f f o r t t o r e t r i e v e , i f we may use t h a t term, her child. In t h i s ' t i m e , she did ask for the child but had no home t o take him to. The child needed and received corrective surgery f o r c l e f t palate, arranged for by the Welfare Department. In l a t e October 1970, the mother wrote t o the Valley County a u t h o r i t i e s t o t h i s effect: "* * *'I was supposed t o have gotten i n touch with the Welfare Department i n Glasgow soon a f t e r he was taken from Wayne J. Cantrell. I f a i l e d t o do so. '" From a rather dismal record of a r r e s t s , living with men unmarried, and general inattention, the mother continued her way of living on the reservation while the child was being cared f o r off the reservation. Appellant here bases her appeal on what she c a l l s the 1' fact" t h a t there is no evidence of a c t s of neglect a t t r i b u t a b l e t o her occurring outside the exterior boundaries of the reserva- tion. Thus, she reasons, the s t a t e courts have no j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h e r a t i o n a l e of Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct.269, 3 L ed 2d 251; Kennerly v. D i s t r i c t Court of Montana, 400 U.S. 423, 91 S.Ct. 480, 27 L ed 2d 507; and, Crow Tribe of Indians v. Deernose, Mont , , 487 P.2d 1133, 28 St.Rep. 754. However, the '"act1' of neglect, t h a t of abandonment of a helpless i n f a n t , occurred off the reservation and continued f o r over a year off the reservation. The mother's only e f f o r t , t o a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes, was t o remain i n the sanctuary of the reservation, oblivious t o the needs of her child. This f a c t alone removes the case from the heretofore c i t e d Indian j u r i s d i c t i o n cases. The d i s t r i c t court ruled t h a t it had jurisdiction because the c h i l d was physically i n the county and off the reservation when the p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . That is the s o l e issue here. Section 10-516, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s i n part: "This a c t s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y construed, t o the end t h a t i t s purposes may be c a r r i e d out, to-wit : That proper guardianship may be provided for i n order t h a t the c h i l d may be educated and cared f o r * * *." Section 10-503, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s i n part: "Any o f f i c e r of the s t a t e bureau of c h i l d and animal protection * * * having knowledge of a c h i l d i n h i s county who appears t o be a dependent or neglected c h i l d , may f i l e with the c l e r k of the d i s t r i c t court a p e t i t i o n * * *." That is exactly t h e procedure i n t h i s case, and the d i s t r i c t court had j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s c h i l d . Accordingly, finding no e r r o r , the order of t h e d i s t r i c t court is affirmed. ~ s s o c a t e J u s t i c e /fly C h p f J u s t i c e c Associate J u s t i c e s .