Title: MARRIAGE OF SANDERSON
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-301
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 23, 1981

No. 80-301 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF TERRY W. SANDERSON, Petitioner and Appellant, VS . TONETTE M . SANDERSON, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Fergus, Montana Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert L. Johnson, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent : Spoja and O'Hare, Lewistown, Montana Filed: Submitted on briefs: January 14, 1981 Decided: February 23, 1981 M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Husband appeals from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t denying h i s p e t i t i o n f o r speci- f i c a t i o n of h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . The s i n g l e i s s u e pre- sented i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g t o s p e c i f y a p p e l l a n t ' s r i g h t of v i s i t a t i o n . W e f i n d t h a t it did. The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e i n t h i s matter is s e c t i o n 40-4- 217, MCA, which reads i n p a r t : " ( 1 ) A p a r e n t n o t granted custody of t h e c h i l d i s e n t i t l e d t o reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s u n l e s s t h e c o u r t f i n d s , a f ter a hearing, t h a t v i s i t a t i o n would endanger s e r i o u s l y t h e c h i l d ' s physical, mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h . " ( 3 ) The c o u r t may modify an order granting o r denying v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s whenever modification would serve t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d ; b u t t h e c o u r t s h a l l n o t r e s t r i c t a p a r e n t ' s v i s i t a - t i o n r i g h t s unless it f i n d s t h a t t h e v i s i t a t i o n would endanger s e r i o u s l y t h e c h i l d ' s physical, mental, moral, o r emotional health." Terry and Tonette Sanderson w e r e married i n J u l y of 1974. Their marriage was dissolved February 5, 1979. The f i n a l decree awarded custody of t h e five-year-old daughter, Tara, t o t h e mother with reasonable v i s i t a t i o n granted t o t h e f a t h e r . A t t h e t i m e of the d i s s o l u t i o n and b r i e f l y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e Sandersons l i v e d i n Lewistown, Montana. The f a t h e r c u r r e n t l y r e s i d e s i n Montana. The mother and daughter have moved t o S a l t Lake C i t y , Utah. I n April of 1980 t h e f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d the D i s t r i c t Court f o r modification of t h e decree requesting s p e c i f i c a - t i o n of h i s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s . A hearing was held June 18, 1980, and testimony from both p a r e n t s was heard. The order denying the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n was entered J u l y 17, 1980. The D i s t r i c t Court concluded it would be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d t o remain i n t h e custody of t h e mother, and t h e f a t h e r should r e t a i n h i s " r i g h t of reasonable v i s i t - a t i o n . " The D i s t r i c t Court declined t o d e f i n e t h e meaning of reasonable v i s i t a t i o n . Under s e c t i o n 40-4-217 ( 3 ) , MCA, t h e t r i a l c o u r t may modify v i s i t a t i o n whenever modification would serve t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of the c h i l d . Concomitantly, t h e noncustodial p a r e n t should n o t be r e s t r i c t e d unless v i s i t a t i o n would endanger t h e child. A t t h e time of t h e o r i g i n a l decree "reasonable v i s i t a - t i o n r i g h t s " w e r e workable because both parents resided i n Lewistown. The mother, by moving t o S a l t Lake City, Utah, p u t 600 miles between f a t h e r and c h i l d . The p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t has been t o r e s t r i c t t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n . Winn Mont. v. Winn (1980), , 618 P.2d 870, 871, 37 St.Rep. 1734, 1736. The p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n - s h i p with t h e c h i l d i s b e n e f i c i a l . The f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s should be defined a l l o c a t i n g s u f f i c i e n t t i m e f o r t h e f a t h e r ' s v i s i t a t i o n so t h a t a meaningful r e l a t i o n s h i p can be nurtured . A s p e c 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 i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a modification of decree. Husband's r i g h t s i n t h i s case would n o t be expanded, b u t r a t h e r would be defined with p a r t i c u l a r i t y . Here a c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s necessary. ~ i v a r d v. Rivard (1969), &75 Wash.2d 415, 451 P.2d 677. This cause i s remanded, and t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s d i r e c t e d t o specify a reasonable schedule of v i s i t a t i o n f o r t h e f a t h e r . W e concur: TL-4 &, &&! 4 Chief J u s t i c e