Title: IN RE CORNELIUSEN
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12133
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: March 6, 1972

No. 12133 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 I N T H E M A T T E R O F DECURING: M A R I L Y N L Y N N CORNELIUSEN, DENNIS LEWIS CORNELIUSEN, DEWAYNE ALVIN CORNELIUSEN, and CLINTON S H A N E CORNELIUSEN, Dependent and Neglected Children. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Francis J. McCarvel argued, Glendive, Montana. For Respondent: Hone Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. Cecil N. Brown, Countyi-'Attorney, argued, Terry, Montana. Submitted: February 15, 1972 Decided : MAR 6 - 1 9 ~ Filed: MAR 6 - ?m M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from an order of the d i s t r i c t court of the sixteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of P r a i r i e , declaring four children of Wilma Jean Corneliusen t o be dependent and neglected children, and awarding custody, care and control t o t h e S t a t e Welfare Department. Wilma Jean Corneliusen, the mother of the four children, is a 32 year old woman of Indian heritage. Her early l i f e was spent i n a Catholic convent where she received a high school education. Sometime a f t e r graduation from high school i n South Dakota i n 1959, she appeared i n a Montana welfare o f f i c e seeking a i d a s an unwed mother. A t t h a t time she was given help and advice and released her child f o r adoption. She married one Larry Corneliusen i n 1961, and two children were born of t h i s marriage, Marilyn born i n 1962, and Dennis born i n 1963. In 1964 Larry Corneliusen abandoned h i s wife and two children; he has not been heard from since. A t the time of the hearing i n April 1971, t h e Corneliusens were not divorced. Subsequent t o 1964 W i l m a Jean has had two more children, Dewayne Alvin born September 26, 1969, and Clinton Shane born August 26, 1970. These two children have d i f f e r e n t fathers . The t r a n s c r i p t reveals t h a t from July 1964, Wilma Jean has r e l i e d upon Aid t o Dependent Children funds from t h e Division of Child Welfare Services of the Department of Public Welfare of the S t a t e of Montana, t o support her children. It further indicates t h a t she had an alcoholic problem and was known by the welfare and law o f f i c e r s as being promiscuous. Evidence introduced a t the hearing indicated t h a t the monthly Aid t o Dependent Children checks were used p a r t i a l l y t o supply her alcoholic needs and did not e n t i r e l y go f o r the care of her children. Considerable evidence was produced indicating dependency and neglect of the four children, including statements made by Wilma Jean t h a t she hated some of the children and threatened t o k i l l the youngest. The local welfare o f f i c e r s worked con- s t a n t l y with Wilma Jean but f i n a l l y concluded i n view of her threats t o the lives of one or more of t h e children, t h a t they should be removed from her and placed where they would have an opportunity t o develop a ~ , ~ n o r m a 1 children. Wilma Jean Corneliusen appeals from the order of the d i s t r i c t court and r a i s e s three issues f o r consideration: 1. Were the minor children of appellant "neglected" within the meaning of section 10-501, R.C.M. 1947? 2. Did the d i s t r i c t court abuse its discretion i n issuing the judgment of April 9, 1971, giving respondent welfare department the r i g h t of adoption? 3 . Should the d i s t r i c t court have allowed the appellant more time t o straighten out her emotional problems? Appellant concedes t h a t t h e children a r e "dependent" children within the meaning of section 10-501, R.C.M. 1947, f o r the record shows the family has been dependent on public assistance since 1964, but, relying upon t h i s c o u r t ' s decision In the Matter of Vikse, 147 Mont. 417, 420, 413 P.2d 876, she argues t h a t t h i s Court should l i b e r a l l y i n t e r p r e t the term 'heglec ted child". Recognizing, a s we must, t h a t t h i s is an impoverished family, t h i s does not mean the mother can use such impoverishment a s a shield t o hide behind i n the neglect of her children when her very a c t s deprived the children of a t t e n t i o n and care. Misuse of welfare funds, lack of medical care and f a i l u r e t o properly p r o ~ i d e within the funds allocated c l e a r l y revea 1 neglect of her children. J u s t i c e Castles i n Vikse said: "* * * 'neglected c h i l d f is a broader term than 'dependent c h i l d ' . The former describes a parental f a i l u r e t o exercise the degree of care demanded by family circumstances. It concerns disregard of parental duty whether intentional o r unintentional .If That is the very case presented the t r i a l judge i n the i n s t a n t case. W e find no merit t o appellant's Issue 1 for the evidence shows both "dependent" and "neglectedr' children. W e w i l l combine Issues 2 and 3 f o r discussion f o r i f Issue 3 were favorably decided for the appellant, it would of necessity s e t a s i d e Issue 2 . It has been written many times, a s often a s t h i s type of case comes before a court, t h a t such cases a r e traumatic and d i s t r e s s i n g f o r a l l concerned and present perplexing problems f o r decision. N o matter what conclusion is reached, it is inevitable t h a t heartaches, misery and despair w i l l r e s u l t . Here, we begin with the presumption t h a t the decision of the d i s t r i c t court is correct. The duty of deciding con- troversy over the r i g h t s t o custody of children is a d e l i c a t e one, lodged with t h e d i s t r i c t court. The decision of t h a t court should not be disturbed except upon a c l e a r showing of an abuse of discretion. Ex parte Bourguin, 88 Mont. 118, 290 P. 250; In r e Thompson, 77 Mont. 466, 251 P. 163. It was the t r i a l court's duty, and ours too, t o concern ourselves with t h e best i n t e r e s t s and welfare of t h e children. Here, the two older children a r e of early school age and experiences with t h e i r mother has l e f t them insecure, troubled and frightened. Can they continue t o grow and mature normally, while hopefully waiting f o r the mother t o straighten out her emotiona.1 problems? W e think not. Children, p a r t i c u l a r l y children d the ages herein involved, must have permanent re- lationships i n order t h a t they may e s t a b l i s h a sense of identity. Without such relationships they may well become emotionally disturbed. Were it not f o r Mrs. Bond of the Welfare Depart- ment and good neighbors who have a l l worked long and hard trying t o help appellant, these children might be facing f a r more grievous problems than they have a t the present time. The d i s t r i c t court a f t e r hearing a l l of the testimony and talking with the two older children, decided t h a t time had run out f o r appellant; t h a t t h e children's best i n t e r e s t s required they no longer wait f o r appellant t o do something t o s t a b l i z e her emotional l i f e . W e agree with the d i s t r i c t court's decision t o put a l l the children i n the custody of the Welfare Department of the S t a t e of Montana, with t h e r i g h t of adoption. There being no abuse of discretion, the judgment is affirmed . Associate Justices 4 Hon. Jack Shanstrom, District Judge, s i t t i n g for Associate Justice Wesley Castles.