Title: MARRIAGE OF MEYER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-488
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 19, 1983

TJo. 82e.488 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF TEE STATE OF nTO?JTANA 1-98 3 IPJ R E TEE PIAREIAGE O F IIICI'IAEL T. MEYER, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, -vs- DEBORAII .?I. ?$EYER, Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: Dlstrict Court of t n e Tenth J u d i c l a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Fergus, The Ilonorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: Torger S, Oaas, Lewistown, Pqontana For Respondent : Leonard H. IlcKinney , Lewistown, Flontana - - - - - - ---- ---- Submltted on B r i e f s : ?,larch 31, 1983 Decided: May 1 9 , 1983 F i l e d : MAY 1 9 1983 - -- Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e L, C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s appeal stems from a supplemental d e c r e e e n t e r e d by 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 , Fergus County, which d e c r e e provided f o r s p l i t c u s t o d y of minor c h i l d r e n , w i t h o u t p r o v i s i o n s f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t , and without s p e c i f i c provi- s i o n s f o r v i s i t a t i o n . The p a r t i e s were married on September 30, 1972, and a t t h a t t i m e respondent, Deborah Meyer, had a son, Tracy. P e t i t i o n e r Mike Meyer adopted T r a c y approximately f i v e or s i x y e a r s a f t e r h i s marriage t o Deborah. A f t e r t h e y were m a r r i e d , t h e p a r t i e s moved t o Bozeman, so t h a t t h e husband could complete h i s e d u c a t i o n , d u r i n g which time w i f e was employed and c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support of t h e family. A f t e r he g r a d u a t e d , he obtained a job a s a t e a c h e r and coach i n Lewistown. H e has held t h i s p o s t f o r t h e p a s t seven y e a r s . While r e s i d i n g i n Lewistown, t h e p a r t i e s had two c h i l d r e n , Shayne, now age f i v e , and J i l l e a n , now age two. A f t e r the b i r t h of Shayne, t h e wife d i d n o t r e t u r n t o work on a permanent b a s i s . She s t a y e d i n t h e home and cared f o r t h e c h i l d r e n u n t i l she e n r o l l e d a t E a s t e r n Montana College i n B i l l i n g s (EMC) i n 1982. I n 1981, t h e wife began a t t e n d i n g c l a s s e s a t t h e Lewistown C o l l e g e Center so t h a t she could o b t a i n a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e . She acquired a l l t h e c r e d i t s t h a t she could through t h e C e n t e r . I t was then decided she should go t o EMC t o o b t a i n t h e o t h e r cre- d i t s she needed i n o r d e r t o become a c e r t i f i e d t e a c h e r . When she began a t t e n d i n g EMC, t h e arrangement was t h a t she was t o go t o B i l l i n g s Monday evenings and r e t u r n t o Lewistown on Thursday evenings, a s her c l a s s e s were o n l y on Tuesday and Thursday. However, t h i s arrangement o n l y l a s t e d f o r a couple of weeks. A f t e r t h a t time, t h e wife began t o spend more time i n B i l l i n g s . The evidence a s t o e x a c t l y why t h e time lengthened is c o n f l i c t i n g . While wife was a t t e n d i n g EMC and Mike was working, a baby- s i t t e r cared f o r t h e younger c h i l d r e n during t h e day. Mike cared f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e house i n t h e evening. The w i f e r e t u r n e d t o Lewistown s p r i n g q u a r t e r t o do h e r s t u - d e n t t e a c h i n g . She moved back i n w i t h t h e f a m i l y , b u t t h e s i t u a t i o n was t e n s e between h e r and husband. During s p r i n g q u a r t e r , w i f e made numerous t r i p s t o B i l l i n g s , e i t h e r l e a v i n g t h e c h i l d r e n with t h e husband o r a s i t t e r . Only o n c e , a f t e r she had had husband j a i l e d f o r a s s a u l t , d i d s h e t a k e t h e two younger c h i l d r e n w i t h h e r . The e v i d e n c e is c o n f l i c t i n g as t o why t h e t r i p s were made. Three i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d by a p p e l l a n t f o r our review: 1. Whether it was e r r o r f o r t h e District Court t o s e p a r a t e t h e c h i l d r e n by awarding c u s t o d y of Tracy t o t h e w i f e and t h e o t h e r two t o t h e husband? 2. Whether it was e r r o r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court n o t t o award t h e w i f e c h i l d s u p p o r t i n l i g h t of h e r r e q u e s t f o r such s u p p o r t ? 3. Whether it was e r r o r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o r e f u s e t o g r a n t a s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e , d e s p i t e t h e recognized ani- m o s i t y between t h e p a r t i e s ? A s t o w i f e ' s f i r s t c o n t e n t i o n t h a t it was e r r o r t o s p l i t t h e c h i l d r e n , we d i s a g r e e . I n c h i l d c u s t o d y m a t t e r s , t h e primary f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d is t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . S e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, Malcom v . Malcom ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. , 640 P.2d 450, 39 St.Rep. 262. A s respondent argues, t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e word c h i l d used i n s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, mandates t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of each c h i l d be c o n s i d e r e d , Hovey v. Department of Revenue ( 1 9 8 3 ) , Mont. , 659 P.2d 280, 40 St.Rep. 272, n o t 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 r e n as a c o l l e c t i v e . " I n reviewing t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s c u s t o d y o r d e r , t h i s Court need o n l y look t o t h e record t o s e e i f t h e f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 40-4-212, MCA, were c o n s i d e r e d , and must d e t e r m i n e whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s e c r i t e r i a . Markegard v. Markegard ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont . , 616 P.2d 323, 325, 37 St.Rep. 1539, 1540"- B i e r v. S h e r r a r d ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- A Mont . , 623 P.2d 550, 551, 38 St.Rep. 158; 159. The f a c t o r s set f o r t h by t h a t s e c t i o n a r e a s f o l l o w s : "40-4-212. B e s t i n t e r e s t of c h i l d . The c o u r t s h a l l determine c u s t o d y i n accordance 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 wishes of t h e c h i l d ' s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s a s t o h i s custody; " ( 2 ) t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d a s t o 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 o r 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 person who may s i g n i - f i c a n t l y af 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 t o 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." S p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s on each of t h e elements need not be made, where t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s adopted. Speer v. Speer ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont . , 654 P.2d 1001, 39 St.Rep. 2204, 2206. I n t h i s c a s e , it is e v i d e n t from t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t s u c h f a c t o r s were c o n s i d e r e d . The f i n d i n g s s e t o u t t h e e s s e n t i a l and determining f a c t s upon which t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e s t e d its c o n c l u s i o n s a s is r e q u i r e d by Cameron v. Cameron ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont. , 641 P.2d 1057, 39 St.Rep. 485, 488. They speak t o such f a c t s a s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a r e by t h e p a r e n t s , and t h e o l d e r c h i l d ' s wishes r e g a r d i n g custody. There is a l s o ample evidence i n t h e record of t h i s case t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s . Examples of s u c h evidence a r e : 1. t h e testimony of both p a r e n t s t h a t each wanted c u s t o d y of a l l t h e c h i l d r e n , a l t h o u g h n e i t h e r of them thought t h e c h i l d r e n s h o u l d be s e p a r a t e d ; 2. t h e c o u r t ' s i n t e r v i e w w i t h Tracy, t h e o l d e s t c h i l d , r e g a r d i n g who he wished t o l i v e with; 3 . t h e t e s t i m o n y e l i c i t e d on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e c h i l d r e n with each o t h e r and both p a r e n t s ; 4. t h e testimony concerning how t h e c h i l d r e n had a d j u s t e d t o t h e home and v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s ; 5. some testimony on t h e g e n e r a l h e a l t h of t h e c h i l d r e n . Based on t h e f i n d i n g s and t h i s e v i d e n c e , we s e e no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n r e g a r d s t o custody. Abuse of d i s c r e t i o n a s a s t a n d a r d of review a l s o a p p l i e s t o t h e n e x t i s s u e r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g t h e award of c h i l d s u p p o r t , a s we have p r e v i o u s l y noted i n G r e n f e l l v. G r e n f e l l ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 182 Mont. 229, 596 P.2d 205, where we s t a t e d : "The s t a n d a r d f o r reviewing maintenance and c h i l d s u p p o r t awards is w e l l s e t t l e d i n Montana. The award made by t h e D i s t r i c t Court w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on appeal u n l e s s t h e r e h a s been a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n r e s u l t i n g i n s u b s t a n t i a l i n j u s t i c e . I n Re Marriage of Brown ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. 587 P.2d 361, 367, 35 St.Rep. 1733, 1740. The District C o u r t , i n making its maintenance and c h i l d s u p p o r t awards, must c o n s i d e r t h e i t e m s and f a c t o r s set o u t i n s e c t i o n s 48-322 and 48-323, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 40-4-203 and 40-4-204, MCA." 596 P.2d a t 207. Here, t h e record r e v e a l s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court heard testi- mony concerning t h e income of t h e p a r t i e s , t h e i r s t a n d a r d of l i v i n g and o t h e r r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s a s is r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-204, MCA. T h i s testimony i n d i c a t e d t h a t both p a r t i e s were employed, t h a t t h e y make almost e q u a l incomes e , husband $1,095 p e r month, wife $800 p e r month a t t h a t time and p r e s e n t l y $950 p e r month), and t h a t each had a home t h a t could a d e q u a t e l y accommodate t h e c h i l d r e n . Based on t h i s e v i d e n c e , it is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e r e was no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e District Court i n not awarding t h e a p p e l l a n t c h i l d s u p p o r t . The Distr i c t Court e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s concerning t h e f a c t t h a t each p a r t y was p r e s e n t l y employed with an income. These f i n d i n g s , coupled w i t h t h e evi- dence i n t h e record of approximately e q u a l incomes and a b i l i t i e s t o c a r e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n , s u p p o r t t h e c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t each p a r t y should s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d o r c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r custody. A s t o t h e l a s t i s s u e of whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court should have set up a s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e , we f i n d no e r r o r . Both t h e husband and wife r a i s e t h e i s s u e of v i s i t a t i o n i n t h e i r r e q u e s t f o r custody. They both s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n w i t h reasonable v i s i t a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r p a r e n t . Wife c o n t e n d s t h a t it was an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e t r i a l c o u r t not t o set a s p e c i f i c v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e , a s such s c h e d u l e is n e c e s s a r y because of t h e animosity t h e D i s t r i c t Court found t o e x i s t between t h e p a r e n t s . Although i n some circum- s t a n c e s it would be an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n where n e c e s s i t y is shown, t h i s is n o t such a c a s e . The record i n t h i s c a s e i n d i - c a t e s each p a r t y ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o a l l o w t h e o t h e r v i s i t a t i o n . There is no showing t h a t a hard and f a s t v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e is needed. The c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s h e r e s u p p o r t its c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n is a l l t h a t is r e q u i r e d . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e type of v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s granted t h e p a r e n t s i n t h i s c a s e is most a b l y s t a t e d by t h e Washington Supreme Court i n Rivard v. Rivard ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 75 Wash.2d 415, 451 P.2d 677, where t h e y s t a t e : "'Many t r i a l c o u r t s do what was done i n t h i s c a s e , i . e . , l e a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e l a t i t u d e i n t h e m a t t e r of v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s , f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t , i f t h e p a r t i e s a r e r e a s o n a b l e i n t h e i r approach t o t h e problem, t h e y can work it o u t on a m u t u a l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y b a s i s and avoid t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t t o a hard and f a s t v i s i t a t i o n s c h e d u l e . I f , however, t h e p a r t i e s cannot a g r e e , t h e c o u r t must t h e n d e f i n e t h e p r i v i l e g e so m i n u t e l y t h a t t h e r e c a n be no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r misunderstanding. ' " 451 P.2d a t 679. Under t h i s r a t i o n a l e , i f t h i s v i s i t a t i o n arrangement t u r n s o u t t o be unworkable f o r t h e p a r t i e s , t h e y can r e t u r n t o D i s t r i c t Court and have t h e i r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s c l a r i f i e d . Sanderson v. Sanderson ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 623 P.2d 1388, 38 St.Rep. 277. / For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e ~ i s t r i c t h u r t ' s d e c r e e is a f firmed. J u s t i & W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e \