Title: ERHARDT v ERHARDT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13232
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: September 21, 1976

No. 13232 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 19 7 6 EMIL W. ERHARDT, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, JOANNE S. ERHARDT, Defendant and Appellant, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l District, Honorable W, W, Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Berg, Angel, Andri.010 & Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Charles F. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : William E, G i l b e r t argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: September 2, 1976 Decided: SEP 2 1 lgl~ M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Gallatin County, granting a change of custody of two minor boys from the mother t o the father following the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n for modification of the custody provisions of the divorce decree. The determinative issue i s whether s u f f i c i e n t evidence was presented a t the hearing on the f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n t o show a material change i n circumstances warranting modification of the divorce decree. W e hold there was not. The father E m i l W. Erhardt and mother JoAnne S. Erhardt were divorced April 14, 1975. They agreed a t t h a t time t h a t JoAnne would receive custody of t h e i r children, Erik W . , age s i x ; and Tilney J., age seven. Upon finding t h a t both p a r t i e s were f i t and proper t o have custody, the d i s t r i c t court incorporated the agreement with the divorce decree and ordered t h a t JoAnne have custody of the children ten months each year and E m i l two months each year. E m i l , however, was allowed t o keep physical custody of the children i n Bozeman u n t i l July 15, 1975, t o give JoAnne time t o g e t a job and establish a home f o r the children i n California. JoAnne subsequently obtained work as an executive secretary and rented an apartment large enough t o accomodate the children. On July 9, 1975, E m i l f i l e d a p e t i t i o n seeking , modification of the divorce decree t o obtain permanent custody of the children. He refused t o deliver the children t o t h e i r mother on July 15, 1975. The p e t i t i o n was heard August 1, 1975 and E m i l was given permanent custody subject t o JoAnne's r i g h t t o have the children f o r the Christmas holidays and f o r t h i r t y days each summer. JoAnne then f i l e d notice of appeal. This Court recently s e t forth the applicable l a w i n Foss v. Leifer , Mont . , 550 P.2d 1309, 1311, 33 St.Rep. 528, ''In Montana it has been firmly established t h a t the c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i n matters of custody is of a continuing nature. Barbour v. Barbour, 134 Mont. 317, 330 P.2d 1093; Libra v. Libra, 154 Mont. 222, 462 P.2d 178. This concept a l s o controls under the recently enacted Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, section 48-339, R.C.M. 1947, which c l e a r l y provides d i s t r i c t courts may not exercise discretionary power t o modify a p r i o r custody decree unless two basic elements a r e shown t o e x i s t : 1) new f a c t s o r f a c t s unknown t o the court a t the time the i n i t i a l decree was entered demonstrate t h a t a change has occurred i n the circumstances of the c h i l d o r those of h i s custodian; and 2) t h i s change i s s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant a modification i n order t o promote the particular c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t s . This basic standard was applied i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n long before the enactment of the new law, and a determination of which law would be applicable under the f a c t s presented would have no bearing on the r e s u l t . Jewett v. Jewett, 73 Mont. 591, 237 P. 702; Trudgen v. Trud- gen, 134 Mont. 174, 329 P.2d 225; Simon v. Simon 154 Mont. 193, 461 P.2d 851. " 9 ~ 9~ * I n reviewing orders which a f f e c t the custody of a child, t h i s Court is mindful t h a t the primary duty of deciding the proper custody of children i s the task of the d i s t r i c t court. Thus, a l l reasonable presumptions a s t o the correctness of t h a t determination w i l l be made. N o ruling w i l l be disturbed absent a c l e a r showing the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s discretion was abused. [Citing cases]." The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o provide some s t a b i l i t y f o r custody arrangements i s further emphasized by section 48-339(1), R.C.M. 1947, of the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, adopted by Montana i n 1975, which provides: !I N o motion t o modify a custody decree may be made e a r l i e r than two (2) years a f t e r i t s date, unless the court permits it t o be made on the basis of a f f i d a v i t s t h a t there is reason t o believe the c h i l d ' s present environment may endanger seriously h i s physical, mental, moral, o r emotional health." However, a s i n Foss, it makes no difference here whether the new law o r the old law controls, f o r both e s t a b l i s h t h a t a modification of custody i s an abuse of discretion unless premised upon a change in circumstances "sufficient to endanger the welfare of the child". The father contends the stability the life the children have settled into constitutes the necessary change in circumstances. Admitting that a change cannot occur in just three and one-half months, he argues it is the result of the children continuing to live with him in the same circumstances and home they have known throughout their lives. He notes the children's friends and activities are the same as they have always been; the children have adjusted to the divorce and formed deeper ties with their father; and the mother has been absent from the home. He concludes that to send the children to JoAnne in California would result in a total upheaval of their lives, contrary to their best interests. JoAnne, on the other hand, argues there has been no change in circumstances. She alleges the circumstances existing at the time of the hearing on Emil's petition were exactly those con- templated when the divorce decree was issued. We agree. The divorce decree of April 14, 1975, expressly provided that the father was given temporary custody until July 15, 1975, for the sole purpose of allowing the mother time to obtain employ- ment and provide a home for her children in California. Only three and one-half months elapsed between the divorce decree and the hearing on Emil's petition for modification. JoAnne obtained employment in April 1975, and she rented an apartment in July 1975. She was prepared to receive the children on July 15, 1975, as previously agreed by the parties and ordered by the district court. No allegations of unfitness were made by either party during the hearing on Emil's petition and after investigation the district court found both parties were fit and proper parents. These facts do not show a change in circumstances sufficient to endanger the children. To the contrary, they show JoAnne did exactly what she wa.s supposed t o do under the terms of the divorce decree and pursuant t o her agreement with E m i l . The evidence i s insufficient t o show a change of circum- stances therefore modification of the custody provisions of the divorce decree by the d i s t r i c t court was an abuse of discre- t i o n and i t s order awarding custody t o the father i s s e t aside. J u s t i c e W e Concur: 1 4 Justices.