Title: MARRIAGE OF BROWN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-006
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 10, 1985

No. 85-06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 IN RE THE LWRRIAGE OF LYNDA SUE BROWN, Petitioner and Appellant, and DAVID WAYNE BROWN, Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Thomas Olson, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: McKinley Anderson, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Ronald A . Saper, Phoenix, Arizona Submitted on Brief: June 13, 1985 necid,ed: September 1 0 , 1985 Filed: SEP 1 d 1985 t *, A d Clerk M r . J u s t i c e L. C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. The p e t i t i o n e r a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County, s t a y i n g a l l p r o c e e d i n g s i n Montana and d e f e r r i n g t o A r i z o n a ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e c u s t o d y o f minor c h i l d r e n . W e a f f i r m . Oavid Wayne Brown, r e s p o n d e n t , and Lynda Sue Brown, p e t i t i o n e r w e r e m a r r i e d on February 2 ? , 1982 i n Utah. They had two c h i l d r e n b e f o r e s e p a r a t i n g e a r l y i n 1984. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e s e p a r a t i o n t h e y r e s i d e d i n Arizona. However, t h e p e t i t i o n e r l e f t Arizona and came t o Montana w i t h t h e youngest c h i l d sometime i n e a r l y 1984. Apparently, on J u l y 1 4 , 1984, a l t h o u g h t h e d a t e i s i n q u e s t i o n , s h e r e t u r n e d t o Arizona i n o r d e r t o b r i n g t h e o l d e r c h i l d back w i t h h e r t o Montana. The respondent a l l e g e s p e t i t i o n e r accomplished t h i s by e n t e r i n g h i s r e s i d e n c e w i t h t h r e e unknown males who a s s a u l t e d him w h i l e s h e removed t h e c h i l d . During a t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e on t h e q u e s t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , c o u n s e l f o r p e t i t i o n e r s t a t e d t o t h e c o u r t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r r e s i d e d i n Arizona from a b o u t October 1982 through June 1984. O n J u l y 1 3 , 1984, t h e respondent p e t i t i o n e d t h e S u p e r i o r Court o f Arizona f o r a d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e m a r r i a g e between h i m s e l f and t h e p e t i t i o n e r . S e r v i c e was i n i t i a l l y accomplished through p u b l i c a t i o n and on September 1 4 , 1984, by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l . The respondent a l s o p e t i t i o n e d t h e Arizona c o u r t f o r temporary custody o f t h e c h i l d r ~ n and f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t from t h e p e t i t i o n e r . Although s h e r e c e i v e d n o t i c e on August 9 , 1984 o f a show c a u s e h e a r i n g i n Arizona on an o r d e r f o r temporary custody and s u p p o r t , t h e p e t i t i o n e r d i d n o t a p p e a r o r respond. The Arizona c o u r t , a f t e r t h e hearing on August 13, 1984, awarded temporary custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e respondent. The p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d f o r a l e g a l s e p a r a t i o n from respondent i n Montana on J u l y 2 0 , 1984. She requested, and was g r a n t e d , temporary custody o f t h e c h i l d r e n by t h e Montana c o u r t t h a t same day pending a hearing. The respondent moved t o d i s m i s s t h e Montana c o u r t ' s temporary o r d e r on October 18, 1984 on t h e grounds t h a t Arizona had j u r i s d i c t i o n because t h e family had r e s i d e d i n Arizona f o r an extended t i m e p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e a c t i o n and because t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e f o r c i b l y removed from Arizona. On October 2 6 , 1984, t h e Montana and Arizona c o u r t s j o i n t l y ordered an o r a l argument on t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t a k e p l a c e by telephone conference on November 5 , 1984. Both judges and counsel f o r p e t i t i o n e r and respondent p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e conference. O n November 1 9 , 1.984, t h e judges signed a j o i n t o r d e r c o n f e r r i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e custody i s s u e i n Arizona; s t a y i n g proceedings i n Montana; s e t t i n g a h e a r i n g f o r December 2 7 , 1984 on t h e i s s u e of custody and support b e f o r e a n Arizona domestic r e l a t i o n s judge; o r d e r i n g t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o be p e r s o n a l l y p r e s e n t a t t h e hearing; and o r d e r i n g t h e minor c h i l d r e n t o be p r e s e n t i n Arizona on o r p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g d a t e . P e t i t i o n e r a p p e a l s t h i s o r d e r and r a i s e s t h e following i s s u e s : (1) Should Montana t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine t h e custody and support o f t h e minor c h i l d r e n ? ( 2 ) Was t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e q u i r e d t o a p p o i n t counsel f o r t h e minor c h i l d r e n ? ( 3 ) Were t h e p e t i t i o n e r o r t h e minor c h i l d r e n denied due p r o c e s s o r any o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ? (4) Was t h e p e t i t i o n e r e n t i t l e d t o a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g i n Montana? The Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t (UCCJA) a d d r e s s e s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n custody c a s e s where more t h a n one s t a t e h a s an i n t e r e s t i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n . According t o S 40-7-104, MCA, w e look t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S 40-4-211, MCA, t o determine whether a s t a t e h a s a s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t t o t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n . (1) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e competent t o d e c i d e c h i l d custody m a t t e r s h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a c h i l d custody d e t e r m i n a t i o n by i n i t i a l or m o d i f i c a t i o n d e c r e e i f : ( a ) t h i s s t a t e : (i) i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d a t t h e t i m e o f commencement o f t h e proceedings; or (ii) had been t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e w i t h i n 6 months b e f o r e commencement o f t h e proceeding and t h e c h i l d i s a b s e n t from t h i s s t a t e because o f h i s removal or r e t e n t i o n by a person c l a i m i n g h i s custody or f o r o t h e r reason and a p a r e n t o r person a c t i n g a s p a r e n t c o n t i n u e s t o live i n t h i s s t a t e ; o r f b ) it i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d t h a t a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e assume j u r i s d i c t i o n because: (i) t h e c h i l d and h i s p a r e n t s o r t h e c h i l d and a t l e a s t one c o n t e s t a n t have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s s t a t e ; and (ii) t h e r e i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s s t a t e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t or f u t u r e c a r e , p r o t e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , snd p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; o r (c) t h e c h i l d i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t i n t h i s s t a t e and: (i) h a s been abandoned; or (ii) it i s n e c e s s a r y i n a n emergency t o p r o t e c t him because h e h a s been s u b j e c t e d t o o r t h r e a t e n e d w i t h m i s t r e a t m e n t o r abuse o r i s n e g l e c t e d o r dependent; o r (d) (i) no o t h e r s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n under p r e r e q u i s i t e s s u b s t a n t i a 1 l y i n accordance w i t h s u b s e c t i o n s (1) ( a ) , (1) (b) , o r (1) (c) o f t h i s s e c t i o n . . . I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , Montana i s n o t t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d r e n and was n o t t h e i r home s t a t e w i t h i n t h e p r i o r s i x months. Both p a r t i e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e f a m i l y r e s i d e d i n Arizona from 1982 u n t i l June 1984. Thus Montana c a n n o t assume j u r i s d i c t i o n under (1) ( a ) o f fj 40-4-211, M C A . F u r t h e r , n e i t h e r c h i l d h a s any s i g n i f i c a n t p a s t connection w i t h t h i s s t a t e . They n e v e r r e s i d e d i n Montana p r i o r t o t h e i r m o t h e r ' s r e t u r n i n June o r J u l y 1984. While some e v i d e n c e a b o u t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c u r r e n t and p o s s i b l e f u t u r e c a r e i s i n Montana, any evidence r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p r i o r c a r e , p r o t e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , and p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s would b e i n t h e i r r e s i d e n t s t a t e , Arizona, r a t h e r t h a n Montana. Thus, Montana c a n n o t assume j u r i s d i c t i o n under (1) (b) o f S 40-4-211, MCA. (1) (c) r e q u i r e s t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e and e i t h e r abandonment o r t h e n e c e s s i t y o f emergency p r o t e c t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r d o e s n o t s u g g e s t abandonment and a l l e g e s no emergency s i t u a t i o n t h a t would r e q u i r e Montana's j u r i s d i c t i o n r a t h e r t h a n A r i z o n a ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . F i n a l l y , Arizona was t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e s i d e n c e and home s t a t e and could and d i d t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n under s u b s e c t i o n (1) ( a ) , t h u s s u b s e c t i o n ( l ) ( d ) p r o v i d e s no a u t h o r i t y f o r Montana t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n . Even assuming Montana h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y under t h i s s e c t i o n t o h e a r t h i s c u s t o d y b a t t l e , s e v e r a l p r o v i s i o n s of UCCJA would c o n f e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h e Arizona c o u r t . S e c t i o n 40-7-107(1), M C A p r o v i d e s : A c o u r t of t h i s s t a t e may n o t e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s c h a p t e r i f a t t h e t i m e o f f i l i n g t h e p e t i t i o n a proceeding concerning t h e custody o f t h e c h i l d was pending i n a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n conformity w i t h t h i s c h a p t e r u n l e s s t h e proceeding i s stayed h 1 7 t h e c o u r t o f t h e o t h e r s t a t e because t h i s s t a t e i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e forum o r f o r o t h e r reasons. H e r e , t h e proceedings i n Arizona, t h e s t a t e o f r e s i d e n c e , w e r e f i l e d p r i o r t o t h o s e i n Montana and Arizona had n o t stayed i t s proceedings. Thus, under t h i s s e c t i o n t h e Montana c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . Section 40-7-108, MCA permits a c o u r t t o d e c l i n e t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n i f it f i n d s t h a t a n o t h e r s t a t e i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e forum. The f a c t o r s t h a t may be considered include which s t a t e i s o r r e c e n t l y was t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f evidence i n t h e o t h e r s t a t e . The District C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o s t a y proceedings would have been proper under t h i s s t a t u t e a s well. W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court c o r r e c t l y stayed Montana proceedings and c o r r e c t l y ordered, i n conjunction w i t h t h e Arizona c o u r t , t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n rests i n Arizona. S e c t i o n 40-4-205, MCA s t a t e s : [Tlhe c o u r t may appoint an a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f a minor dependent c h i l d w i t h r e s p e c t t o h i s support, custody, and v i s i t a t i o n . . . The s o l e concern o f t h e c o u r t below was whether j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine t h o s e i s s u e s should be i n Montana o r Arizona. Section 40-4-205, MCA a p p l i e s t o t h e s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s , n o t t o t h e question o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court committed no e r r o r i n n.ot a p p o i n t i n g an 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 e t h i r d i s s u e , p e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t she and h e r c h i l d r e n w e r e denied due process, e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , and a speedy remedy when t h e District Court stayed Montana's proceedings, leaving Arizona's c o u r t system a s t h e only forum f o r h e r claims. She s u p p o r t s t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s by d i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e l a c k o f testimony, cross-examination and proper h e a r i n g i n Arizona. P e t i t i o n e r ' s a c t i o n i n f a i l i n g t o appear a f t e r n o t i c e was t h e reason f o r t h e l a c k o f testimony and cross-examination. The Arizona forum remains open t o h e r and, if respondent f a i l s t o proceed, then t h e door t o Montana's c o u r t system w i l l open. W e f i n d t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s without m e r i t . F i n a l l y , p e t i t i o n e r argues t h a t UCCJA c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e " b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d " test enunciated i n S 40-4-212, MCA and t h a t t h e telephone conference regarding j u r i s d i c t i o n was n o t adequate a s an e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. There i s no c o n f l i c t between t h e r u l e s f o r determining j u r i s d i c t i o n when two s t a t e s have an i n t e r e s t i n a custody m a t t e r and t h e r u l e s f o r determining custody. One i s a procedural determination a s t o t h e proper forum, made p r i o r t o any s u b s t a n t i v e i n q u i r y , and t h e o t h e r i s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s u b s t a n t i v e r u l e s . The telephone conference addressed only t h e procedural i s s u e , t h u s evidence concerning t h e p a r e n t a l a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p a r t i e s o r a l l e g e d misconduct o f e i t h e r would have been unnecessary and i n a p p r o p r i a t e . W e hold t h a t no e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was r e q u i r e d under t h e s e circumstances. The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. " 1 Justice, /' We concur: H