Opinion ID: 877972
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: father's competence

Text: Due to the unusual nature of this case, it is necessary to point out that the testimony given by the father in this matter was at a hearing to determine whether his son was abused and neglected. The father was present with counsel, and at the end of the proceedings requested through counsel that he be allowed to make a presentation to the court. The father was sworn and testified, giving some sixty-three pages of testimony concerning the family situation. No objections were made to this testimony. The trial judge had an opportunity to observe the father and weigh his testimony as it concerned the hearing with regard to the son. While the father claims that since he had been declared unfit to proceed in a collateral criminal action, he is also unfit to proceed in this civil action, the record in no way indicates that he has been declared an incompetent. In fact, the record does not reveal any loss of status which would prevent him from proceeding in this matter. In addition, section 53-21-141(1), MCA, provides that, [u]nless specifically stated in an order by the court, a person involuntarily committed to a facility for a period of evaluation or treatment does not forfeit any legal right or suffer any legal disability ... There is nothing in the record to indicate that the father was declared unfit to proceed in anything except the criminal proceeding. Therefore, he retains his right to proceed in a civil action. Further, the party asserting incompetence has the burden of proving it, Hodges v. Hodges (1967), 150 Mont. 413, 435 P.2d 784, and a person is presumed competent to testify unless the court finds otherwise. See, Rule 601, Mont.R.Evid. Thus, with no affirmative showing of incompetence to proceed in this civil action, we presume the father was competent. Finally, the father could have requested a guardian ad litem to be appointed if he felt his attorney was not properly representing him. See, Rule 17(c), M.R.Civ.P. Therefore, we hold that it was proper in this case to proceed with the youth in need of care proceeding despite the fact that the father was declared unfit to proceed in a collateral criminal action.