Title: MORRELL v GIESICK
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 79-058
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 1980

No. 79-58 IN THE SURPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 CARRIE M. MORRELL, previously known as CARRIE M. GIESICK, Petitioner and Appellant, ROBERT LEE GIESICK, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Rosebud. Honorable A. B . Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Phyllis A. Bock, argued, Montana Legal Services, Miles City, Montana For Respondent : John S Forsythe argued, Forsyth, Montana Submitted: April 15, 1980 Decided: MY14 Filed: -- hffiy 1 4 1 3 m M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. C a r r i e M. Morrell appeals from a summary judgment entered i n favor of Robert Lee Giesick. The judgment, entered by t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court, Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Rosebud County, precluded Morrell from challenging G i e s i c k ' s custody of Morrell's c h i l d , Sandy Joe Giesick. Sandy Joe w a s born on J u l y 21, 1974. Morrell i s l i s t e d on Sandy J o e ' s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e as t h e mother b u t no f a t h e r i s named. Sandy J o e ' s surname on t h e b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e was Baertsch, M o r r e l l ' s maiden name. According t o Giesick, he and Morrell were l i v i n g together and having sexual i n t e r - course a t t h e t i m e Sandy Joe was conceived. Morrell, how- ever, maintains she had n o t even m e t Giesick a t t h e t i m e Sandy J o e w a s conceived and Morrell was d a t i n g and having sexual i n t e r c o u r s e exclusively with Darrell Canfield. Canfield d i d c o n t r i b u t e $360 towards t h e medical expenses a s s o c i a t e d with Sandy J o e ' s delivery. On Thanksgiving 1974, Morrell t o l d Giesick he was n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Morrell t o l d Giesick t h i s again i n J u l y 1975 and repeated it numerous t i m e s t h e r e a f t e r . I n December 1974, Morrell and Giesick were married i n Sheridan, Wyoming. Giesick took Sandy J o e i n t o h i s home, openly held her o u t a s h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d and allowed her t o use h i s surnane. A t some p o i n t , Morrell signed a "Consent To Custody And Guardianship" t r a n s f e r r i n g Sandy J o e ' s custody and c o n t r o l t o M o r r e l l ' s p a r e n t s , George and Dorothy Baertsch. I n November 1975, Morrell and Giesick j o i n t l y p e t i t i o n e d f o r a w r i t of habeas corpus t o secure Sandy J o e ' s r e t u r n from M o r r e l l ' s parents. The p e t i t i o n r e c i t e d t h a t Morrell and ~ i e s i c k w e r e Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l parents. Subsequently, M o r r e l l ' s p a r e n t s v o l u n t a r i l y returned Sandy Joe, and the p e t i t i o n was dismissed. Morrell and Giesick separated s e v e r a l t i m e s during t h e i r marriage. The l a s t separation occurred i n May 1976, when Morrell took t h e c h i l d r e n , Sandy J o e and A m y Marie Giesick, t o Oklahoma. I n late December 1976, the c h i l d r e n were returned t o Montana and p u t i n t o G i e s i c k ' s custody. The c h i l d r e n have l i v e d i n Montana with Giesick and h i s second wife s i n c e t h a t t i m e . On March 24, 1977, Giesick obtained a d i s s o l u t i o n of h i s marriage with Morrell i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Rosebud County. Morrell was served by publication. Giesick was given custody of Sandy J o e and A m y Marie under t h e d e f a u l t judgment entered by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. N o i s s u e has been r a i s e d here regarding t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e marriage d i s s o l u - t i o n i t s e l f . On March 29, 1979, Morrell f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n t o set a s i d e t h e c h i l d custody provision i n t h e d e f a u l t marriage d i s s o l u t i o n decree. The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d Giesick possibly committed a fraud upon t h e District Court by a l l e g i n g i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n p e t i t i o n t h a t Sandy J o e was "born of the m a r - riage." The p e t i t i o n a l s o a l l e g e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award Giesick custody of Sandy J o e s i n c e Morrell w a s served by publication. Giesick moved f o r summary judgment which was granted on September 26, 1979. The D i s t r i c t Court held t h e d i s s o l u t i o n c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award Giesick custody of t h e c h i l d r e n s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were i n Montana a t t h e t i m e t h e d i s s o l u t i o n p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d and t h e r e was no i r r e g u l a r i t y i n service of process. Next, t h e District Court held Morrell was barred by estoppel, laches and res judicata from chal- lenging t h e d i s s o l u t i o n decree's custody provision. Upon appeal, Morrell challenges t h e propriety of the summary judgment i t s e l f a s w e l l as t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the D i s t r i c t Court t o determine Sandy J o e ' s custody. W e a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t Court. According t o Morrell, genuine issdrs of m a t e r i a l f a c t remain unresolved, and Giesick was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a judg- ment a s a m a t t e r of law. The contention is without m e r i t . Morrell admits Giesick took Sandy Joe i n t o h i s home, openly held her o u t a s h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d , and allowed her t o use h i s surname. Morrell a l s o admits her representation i n t h e 1975 p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of habeas corpus t h a t Giesick i s Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Moreover, Morrell admits she has acquiesced f o r almost f i v e years i n Giesick's being Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Certainly, G i e s t c k . has changed h i s p o s i t i o n i n r e l i a n c e on Morrell's representations and long acquiescence. Therefore, having admitted t h e necessary elements, Morrell i s estopped from a s s e r t i n g Giesick i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Morrell i s a l s o barred by laches from a s s e r t i n g Giesick i s not Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Morrell claims t o have known f o r over f i v e years t h a t Giesick is n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Y e t , Morrell waited f o r over three years a f t e r Giesick was awarded Sandy J o e ' s custody t o bring a p e t i t i o n f o r modification. During t h i s period, Sandy Joe has undoubtedly become an i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e ~ i e s i c k family. F i n a l l y , Morrell is barred by res judicata from assert- i n g t h a t Giesick i s not Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l parent. The record demonstrates Morrell was v a l i d l y served by publica- t i o n and i n f a c t had n o t i c e of t h e proceedings. Thus, Morrell had her opportunity t o challenge G i e s i c k ' s p a t e r n i t y of Sandy Joe, y e t she f a i l e d t o appear. Morrell next contends Sandy J o e ' s custody could n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y be determined without personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over Morrell. Morrell a s s e r t s her due process r i g h t s have been v i o l a t e d . This contention a l s o has no m e r i t . M o r r e l l ' s contentions a r e based on a misreading of May v. Anderson (1953), 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221. While t h e language of t h i s opinion i s very broad, most c o u r t s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n have l i m i t e d t h e holding t o where both t h e c h i l d and t h e defending p a r e n t a r e n o t i n t h e rendering s t a t e a t t h e t i m e of t h e custody pro- ceeding. See, e - g . , Worland v. Worland (N.M. 1976), 551 P.2d 981, and Bush v. Bush (Okl. 1956), 299 P.2d 155. The Supreme Court d e c i s i o n i t s e l f i n d i c a t e s t h i s is t h e proper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . May v. Anderson, supra, 345 U.S. a t 534 n. 8. Limiting t h e e f f e c t of t h e M a y d e c i s i o n i n t h i s manner a l s o makes good sense. Otherwise, t h e convenience of a leave-taking p a r e n t i s placed above t h e welfare of t h e c h i l d . The s i t u a t i o n becomes such t h a t one s t a t e cannot bind t h e f a t h e r and another s t a t e cannot bind t h e mother. Possession becomes n o t merely nine-tenths of t h e law b u t a l l of t h e law. Self-help becomes t h e u l t i m a t e remedy, and t h e l a w of custody i s reduced t o a r u l e of s e i z e and run. Batchelor v. Fulcher (Ky. 1967), 415 S.W.2d 828, 832-33 (Osborne, J., d i s s e n t i n g ) . Morrell f i n a l l y contends t h e custody provision i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n decree i s void s i n c e Sandy J o e i s n o t G i e s i c k ' s n a t u r a l c h i l d and t h e r e has not been a proper showing of c h i l d abuse, neglect o r dependency. A s noted above, ~ o r r e l l i s barred by e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and res j u d i c a t a from assert- i n g Giesick i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t . Having found no e r r o r , t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: 7!~& $, w 9 4 Chief J u s t i c e ~ ! @ ' 9 d w u , J u s t i c e s 0