Title: APPLICATION OF PIERCE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14784
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 25, 1979

No. 14784 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1979 I N RE T H E APPLICATION O F W A L T AND JUDE PIERCE. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana James S i n c l a i r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Bradley P a r r i s h argued, Lewistown, Montana Submitted: September 25, 1979 Decided: OCT 2 5 1978 7 - Filed: y C j 2 5 : ~ - d M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. W a l t and Judy Pierce, parents of Katherine Frances P i e r c e , p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l o r o t h e r appropriate w r i t t o secure t h e custody of Katherine. W e deny t h e r e l i e f requested. O n November 29, 1978, Katherine Frances P i e r c e p e t i - tioned 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 , County of Fergus, under t h e provision of s e c t i o n 41-5-921, MCA, t o p l a c e her with her maternal grandparents, Burton T. and Frances E. Raw, a t G a r n e i l l , Montana. H e r p e t i t i o n noted t h a t on November 20, 1978, she r a n away from her p a r e n t a l home i n Powell, Wyoming. It a l l e g e d t h a t she had s u f f e r e d physical and mental abuse from her p a r e n t s over a period of years, and t h a t she d e s i r e d t o be placed i n t h e custody of her grandparents. The cause was set f o r hearing on December 20, 1978. Bradley P a r r i s h , counsel f o r Katherine Frances, s e n t a n o t i c e of t h e hearing t o M r . and M r s . Walter P i e r c e a t Powell, Wyoming. Hearing w a s held on December 20, 1978, which M r . and M r s . P i e r c e d i d n o t a t t e n d on advice of counsel, wherein t h e D i s t r i c t Court found it had j u r i s d i c - t i o n under t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 41-5-921, MCA, and placed Katherine Frances i n t h e custody of her grandparents i n l i e u of placing her i n a d i s t r i c t guidance home. P e t i t i o n e r s , Walt and Judy P i e r c e , p e t i t i o n e d t h e Juvenile Court, Park County, Wyoming, f o r an order giving them custody of Katherine Frances, under t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on Juveniles. I n t h e i r p e t i t i o n they a l l e g e d t h a t Judy had run away from home, t h a t she was with her grand- p a r e n t s , t h e R a w s , and t h a t it was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s and p r o t e c t i o n of Katherine Frances t h a t she be returned t o t h e l e g a l custody o f h e r parents. The p e t i t i o n requested t h a t an o r d e r be issued d i r e c t i n g any peace o f f i c e r o r appropri- a t e person i n Montana t o t a k e Katherine Frances i n t o custody and d e t a i n her. Such a n o r d e r and r e q u i s i t i o n was i s s u e d by t h e Wyoming c o u r t on December 18, 1978. However, because they had t o be processed through s t a t e o f f i c e s i n Helena, Montana, t h e o r d e r and r e q u i s i t i o n d i d n o t reach Fergus County, Montana, u n t i l sometime i n January. Upon r e c e i p t o f t h e o r d e r and r e q u i s i t i o n from Wyoming, t h e Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon set a hearing d a t e f o r January 25, 1979. A t t h a t hearing a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s appeared with counsel. Testimony w a s given by both p e t i - t i o n e r s , by t h e grandparents, by Katherine Frances, by Sherry P i e r c e , Katherine's sister, and by Susan Briggs. Counsel w e r e given t i m e t o submit b r i e f s t o t h e c o u r t , and on March 28, 1979, t h e c o u r t i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law and o r d e r , denying t h e r e q u i s i t i o n from t h e S t a t e of Wyoming. The f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of l a w s t a t e d : "1. That on t h e 30th day of November, 1978, t h e s a i d Katherine Frances P i e r c e f i l e d a p e t i t i o n h e r e i n under Section 10-1247, R.C.M. 1947 a s amended, now Section 41-5-921 M.C.A., asking t o be placed i n t h e custody of h e r maternal grand- p a r e n t s i n l i e u of a D i s t r i c t Youth Guidance Home. That hearing thereon came on r e g u l a r l y December 20, 1978; t h a t o r d e r thereon i s s u e d December 27, 1978, placing s a i d youth i n t h e custody of h e r maternal grandparents, Burton T. and Frances E. Raw, of G a r n e i l l , Montana. "2. That on t h e 25th day of January, 1979, hear- i n g came on r e g u l a r l y on Order and Requisition from County of Park, S t a t e of Wyoming, which ap- p a r e n t l y came i n t o t h e J u v e n i l e Department, and had n o t been f i l e d with t h e Clerk of Court. "3. That t h e p a r e n t s of s a i d youth appeared and t e s t i f i e d t h a t s a i d youth has problems, and t h a t they have made arrangements t o p l a c e h e r i n a n i n s t i t u t i o n . They f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t they had n o t i c e of t h e hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n of s a i d youth, b u t being advised t h a t they had n o t been properly served, they e l e c t e d n o t t o attend s a i d hearing. " 4 . That t h e maternal grandparents t e s t i f i e d t h a t they have no indication of any problem; t h a t they g e t along well with s a i d youth; t h a t said youth takes c a r e of her own room and helps her grandmother prepare meals and do up dishes; t h a t s a i d youth i s enrolled i n high school a t Moore, Montana, and i s earning A ' s and B ' s ; t h a t the s a i d school teachers i n d i c a t e no problem whatever, t h a t s a i d youth i s doing very w e l l . That an aunt of s a i d youth who l i v e s i n a separate home on t h e s a m e farmstead with t h e grandparents t e s t i f i e d t o t h e same e f f e c t as t h e grandparents. "5. Said youth t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e is no love i n her parental home; t h a t she was an unwanted c h i l d ; t h a t she has constantly been threatened with i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n ; t h a t she has been t o l d t h a t t h e minute she i s eighteen, s h e ' s o u t of t h e house. That t h e r e i s love and caring i n her grandparents home, t h a t she i s accepted there, and t h a t she wants t o s t a y there. "From t h e foregoing f a c t s , t h e Court draws t h e following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "1. That t h e s a i d Katherine Frances Pierce has no support t o enable her t o present her s i t u a t i o n t o a Court i n t h e S t a t e of Wyoming. "2. That it i s n o t i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e s a i d youth t o be returned t o t h e S t a t e of Wyoming. " 3 . That t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of s a i d youth, and of society a t l a r g e would be served by leaving her i n t h e c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l of M r . and M r s . Burton T. Raw, Garneill, Montana." P e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of super- visory control t o set a s i d e the orders of Judge McKinnon dated December 27, 1978, and March 28, 1979, and t o r e t u r n Katherine Frances t o her parents i n t h e S t a t e of Wyoming pursuant t o t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on Juveniles. Three contentions a r e set f o r t h by p e t i t i o n e r s : 1. That t h e Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon s u b s t i t u t e d h i s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e judge of t h e demanding state, namely, t h e S t a t e of Wyoming, on what was t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d ; 2. hat t h e Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon exceeded t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n bestowed upon him pursuant t o t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on Juveniles; and 3 . That t h e Honorable LeRoy L. McKinnon deprived t h e Wyoming p a r e n t s of t h e minor c h i l d of custody of t h e c h i l d and t h a t h i s order i s i n excess of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n granted him. W e f i r s t look t o t h e f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n faced by Judge McKinnon when Katherine Frances f i l e d her p e t i t i o n i n h i s c o u r t on November 29, 1978. Her p e t i t i o n revealed she had l e f t her p a r e n t a l home, gave t h e reasons f o r leaving, and sought t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e c o u r t under s e c t i o n 41-5-921, MCA. She was not, nor had she ever been, declared a d e l i n - quent c h i l d e i t h e r i n Wyoming o r Montana, b u t was a runaway c h i l d . While t h e above s t a t u t e provides f o r placement i n a d i s t r i c t youth guidance home, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Tenth Judi- c i a l D i s t r i c t had no such home d i d n o t of i t s e l f preclude Judge McKinnon from accepting j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e cause. J u r i s d i c t i o n having attached, t h e cause properly remained before Judge McKinnon. It w a s within h i s d i s c r e t i o n t o have her placed i n a s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n o r an approved a f t e r c a r e program. Because Katherine Frances w a s n o t a delinquent c h i l d , b u t one i n need of a home with tender loving c a r e , Judge McKinnon, i n t h e e x e r c i s e of h i s broad d i s c r e t i o n , properly used t h a t d i s c r e t i o n i n granting her request t o be placed with her grandparents. W e are not faced here, as argued by p e t i t i o n e r s , with t h e s a m e f a c t s o r l e g a l problems presented i n I n t h e Matter of Aschenbrenner (1979) , - Mont. , 597 P.2d 1156, 36 St.Rep. 1282. I n t h a t c a s e t h e grandparents p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r a guardianship of t h e i r grandchildren and t h e mother appealed t h e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s decision. W e reversed, holding t h a t a guardianship proceeding i s n o t a proper means t o terminate a p a r e n t ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o custody of h i s o r her child. Here, unlike Aschenbrenner, Katherine Frances i s t h e p e t i t i o n e r under an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t s t a t u - t o r y procedure. Nor do w e f i n d our r e c e n t case of Wenz v. Schwartze (1979) I Mont. , 598 P.2d 1086, 36 St.Rep. 1360, c o n t r o l l i n g . This case w i l l be discussed i n our discussion of o t h e r i s s u e s r a i s e d by p e t i t i o n e r s . Here, Katherine Frances f i l e d her p e t i t i o n , a s a youth i n need of care, and later changed t h e same t o request placement with her grand- parents, and as of t h e d a t e of hearing, November 29, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n a s requested. The second i s s u e challenging Judge McKinnon's r i g h t t o continue j u r i s d i c t i o n once he w a s presented with the order and r e q u i s i t i o n from t h e S t a t e of Wyoming r a i s e s s e v e r a l issues. F i r s t , it must be decided i f t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on Juveniles empowers t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o a c t beyond refusing t o r e t u r n a youth t o a r e q u i s i t i o n i n g state pursu- a n t t o a hearing under t h e Compact. Second, it must be determined i f t h e Uniform Child Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n Act (UCCJA) precludes t h e D i s t r i c t Court from denying enforce- ment of t h e Wyoming decree and placing Katherine i n her grandparents' custody. Section 41-6-105, MCA, p e r t a i n s t o t h e f i r s t question presented under t h i s issue. That s e c t i o n reads: "The courts, departments, agencies, and o f f i c e r s of t h i s s t a t e and i t s subdivisions s h a l l enforce t h i s compact and s h a l l do a l l things appropriate t o t h e e f f e c t u a t i o n of i t s purposes and i n t e n t which may be within t h e i r respective jurisdic- tions. " The broad language of t h i s s e c t i o n granting t h e c o u r t s of Montana t h e a u t h o r i t y t o "do a l l t h i n g s appropriate" t o c a r r y o u t t h e purposes of t h e Compact should include t h e power t o p l a c e a youth i n a p r i v a t e home on determining t h e c h i l d should n o t be returned t o t h e r e q u i s i t i o n i n g s t a t e . Beyond t h e s t a t u t o r y language, I n R e Welfare of Wiles (1976), 15 Wash.App. 61, 547 P.2d 302, s u b s t a n t i a t e s t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e c o u r t ' s power under t h e Compact. Although t h e Washington c o u r t d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y address t h e question before us, t h e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of t h e d e c i s i o n was t o place t h e youth involved i n t h e matter i n t h e custody of her mother i n Washington d e s p i t e t h e e x i s t e n c e of a c o u r t o r d e r i n Oregon g r a n t i n g custody of t h e c h i l d t o t h e S t a t e of Oregon. The second problem under t h i s i s s u e a r i s e s due t o t h e December 18 order issued by t h e Wyoming c o u r t f i n d i n g Walt and Judy P i e r c e e n t i t l e d t o l e g a l custody of Katherine. This order meets t h e d e f i n i t i o n of "decree" set o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-7-103(4), MCA, thus bringing t h e matter within t h e purview of t h e UCCJA. Under t h e UCCJA, t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Montana must have j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e c h i l d and j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify an out-of-state decree before e n t e r i n g a v a l i d decree i n Montana. Wenz v. Schwartze, 598 P.2d a t 1093. Section 40- 4-211 (1) ( c ) (ii) , MCA, a p o r t i o n of t h e UCCJA j u r i s d i c t i o n s t a t u t e incorporated by reference, allows t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court t o invoke j u r i s d i c t i o n over a c h i l d p r e s e n t i n t h e s t a t e when it i s necessary t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d because of threatened mistreatment o r abuse. Since t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court found t h a t t o be t h e s i t u a t i o n here, t h e c o u r t had j u r i s - d i c t i o n over Katherine. Regarding t h e enforcement of t h e Wyoming decree under t h e UCCJA, t h e Court s t a t e d i n Wenz, ". . . before t h e recognition and enforcement provisions of t h e Act can be applied, t h e i n i t i a l decree must be entered i n conformity with s t r i c t n o t i c e requirements." 598 P.2d a t 1095. See a l s o s e c t i o n 40-7-114, MCA. I f t h e r e i s no compliance with t h e n o t i c e requirements of t h e UCCJA by t h e s t a t e e n t e r i n g t h e i n i t i a l decree, Montana c o u r t s are n o t required t o recognize and enforce t h e out-of-state decree. Wenz, 598 P.2d a t 1096. H e r e , n o t i c e of t h e Wyoming hearing w a s n o t given t o t h e Raws, t h e persons i n physical custody of Katherine, c o n t r a r y t o t h e requirements of s e c t i o n 40-7-105, MCA. Under Wenz t h e D i s t r i c t Court, t h e r e f o r e , w a s n o t required t o recognize o r enforce t h e Wyoming order. The l a s t i s s u e challenges Judge McKinnon's order placing Katherine i n her grandparents' home, a l l e g i n g t h a t he acted i n excess of h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n and deprived t h e p e t i t i o n e r s t h e custody of t h e i r minor c h i l d . P e t i t i o n e r s argue t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order placing Katherine with her grandparents modified t h e Wyoming decree. Section 40-7-115, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h e Montana c o u r t s t o d e f e r t o t h e c o u r t s of a s t a t e which f i r s t g r a n t s a custody decree. Under t h i s s e c t i o n , Wyoming r e t a i n s almost exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine Katherine's custody unless Wyoming no longer has j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n accordance with t h e UCCJA, o r has declined t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e c o u r t of t h i s state has j u r i s d i c t i o n . Wenz, 598 P.2d a t 1096. Since t h e ~ y o m i n g c o u r t has n o t declined t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n , Montana c o u r t s must d e f e r t o Wyoming's c o u r t s with r e s p e c t t o modi- f i c a t i o n unless those c o u r t s no longer have j u r i s d i c t i o n under j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n accordance with t h e UCCJA. Making t h i s determination e n t a i l s once again c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l standards set o u t i n s e c t i o n 40-4-211, MCA, t h i s t i m e t o decide i f t h e Wyoming c o u r t s still have j u r i s d i c t i o n over Katherine. Section 40-7-103(5), MCA, d e f i n e s "home s t a t e " a s ". . . t h e s t a t e i n which t h e c h i l d , immediately preceding t h e t i m e involved, l i v e d with h i s p a r e n t s . . . f o r a t l e a s t 6 consecutive months . . ." Under s e c t i o n 40-4-211 (1) ( a ) (i) , MCA, state c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n over c h i l d r e n i f t h e state i s t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e . Reading t h e s e two s e c t i o n s t o g e t h e r , t h e f a c t s here show t h a t t h e Wyoming c o u r t s re- t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over Katherine under t h e UCCJA. The District Court, t h e r e f o r e , d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify t h e Wyoming c o u r t ' s custody decree. W e f i n d t h a t t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on J u v e n i l e s and t h e UCCJA p l a c e s t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n t h e following s i t u a t i o n : t h e c o u r t has t h e a u t h o r i t y under t h e Compact t o deny Wyoming's r e q u i s i t i o n o r d e r i n g Katherine be r e t u r n e d t o Wyoming and p l a c e Katherine i n t h e custody of h e r grandparents; under t h e UCCJA, t h e c o u r t i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o recognize o r enforce t h e Wyoming o r d e r , b u t t h e c o u r t i s precluded from modifying t h e order. Considering t h e March 28 o r d e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court merely concluded t h a t Katherine's b e s t i n t e r e s t would be served by having h e r i n t h e custody of h e r grandparents and ordered t h e Wyoming r e q u i s i t i o n denied. The c o u r t d i d n o t modify t h e Wyoming o r d e r . This procedure appears t o be allowed under t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of t h e I n t e r s t a t e Compact on Juveniles and t h e UCCJA. Therefore, t h i s Court should n o t set a s i d e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s March 28 o r d e r . The p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of supervisory c o n t r o l i s denied. W e concur: g h i e f J u s t i c e M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell s p e c i a l l y concurring: I concur i n t h e r e s u l t . 2 4 A - k 4 % - Chief J u s t i c e