Opinion ID: 876901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jurisdiction to Modify the California Decree.

Text: A second limitation on the District Court's jurisdiction arises when a decree of another state is already in force. In the present case, the California Superior Court had first granted custody to the child's mother. Then, by a modification decree dated July 7, 1975, granted custody to the father. The father argues that the UCCJA and the full faith and credit clause prohibit a modification of the decree by the Montana court. The United States Supreme Court has not ruled explicitly whether the full faith and credit clause applies to custody decrees. Past decisions of this Court, however, have treated the clause as a limitation on a Montana court's jurisdiction to modify custody determinations made by other states. Carroll v. White (1968), 151 Mont. 332, 443 P.2d 13. While the United States Supreme Court has not specifically held whether the clause is applied in any custody cases, it has refused to apply it to particular cases in which the procedure in a state court was not considered adequate. Of particular relevance is Ford v. Ford (1962), 371 U.S. 187, 83 S.Ct. 273, 9 L.Ed.2d 240. In Ford a Virginia court awarded custody of children to their mother. Some months later the father petitioned the same court for a modification of the decree, but before the court entered judgment on his petition, the parties agreed to a modification and so notified the court, which dismissed the petition. Subsequently, the mother moved to South Carolina and petitioned a court of that state to regain custody of the parties' children. The father defended his custody on the basis of the agreement and the Virginia court's dismissal in response to that agreement. The United States Supreme Court held that the South Carolina courts were not bound by the dismissal of the Virginia petition for modification. In so ruling, the Court cited several considerations which are relevant here: The Virginia court held no hearings as to the custody of the children. In entering its order of dismissal, the court neither examined the terms of the parents' agreement nor exercised its own judgment of what was best for the children. The court's order meant no more than that the parents had made an agreement between themselves ... ... ... we do not believe that, in view of Virginia's strong policy of safeguarding the welfare of the child, a court of that State would consider itself bound by a mere order of dismissal where, as here, the trial judge never even saw, much less passed upon, the parents' private agreement for custody and heard no testimony whatever upon which to base a judgment as to what would be best for the children. 371 U.S. at 193-94, 83 S.Ct. at 276-77, 9 L.Ed.2d at 244-45. These same considerations are applicable here. While the Los Angeles County Superior Court at least appears to have viewed the substance of the stipulation between the natural parents, it is a matter or record that no hearing was held, the court heard no testimony regarding what would be best for the child, and therefore could not have exercised its own judgment of what was best for the child. Thus, because these were precisely the issues which the Montana court heard and decided, it is no more bound to follow the California court's decree than was the South Carolina court bound to follow the Virginia order in Ford. Similarly, we conclude that the Montana court was not prevented from modifying the California decree by the UCCJA. A central purpose of the Act is to reduce interstate competition for a child's custody by requiring recognition and enforcement of one state's decrees by the courts of other states. However, before the recognition and enforcement provisions of the Act can be applied, the initial decree must be entered in conformity with strict notice requirements. Section 13 of the UCCJA, section 40-7-114 MCA, provides for the recognition and enforcement of out-of-state custody decrees: The courts of this state shall recognize and enforce an initial or modification decree of a court of another state which had assumed jurisdiction under statutory provisions substantially in accordance with this chapter or which was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of the chapter, so long as this decree has not been modified in accordance with jurisdictional standards substantially similar to those of this chapter. Section 14 of the Act, section 40-7-115 MCA, limits a District Court's jurisdiction to modify the decrees of another state: (1) If a court of another state has made a custody decree, a court of this state may not modify that decree unless it appears to the court of this state that the court which rendered the decree does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this chapter or has declined to assume jurisdiction to modify the decree and the court of this state has jurisdiction. (2) If a court of this state is authorized under subsection (1) and 40-7-109 to modify a custody decree of another state, it shall give due consideration to the transcript of the record and other documents of all previous proceedings submitted to it in accordance with 40-7-123. The difficulty with the application of these provisions to the present matter arises from the failure of the California Superior Court to comply with the notice provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, sections 40-7-105 and -106 MCA. See Cal.Civ.Code sections 5153, 5154. Section 40-7-105 MCA provides for notice to, among others, any person who has physical custody of the child: Before making a decree under this chapter, reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard shall be given to the contestants, any parent whose parental rights have not been previously terminated, and any person who has physical custody of the child. If any of these persons are outside this state, notice and opportunity to be heard shall be given pursuant to 40-7-106. (Emphasis added.) Section 40-7-106 MCA contains notice requirements when a person to whom notice and opportunity to be heard must be given is in another state. It requires such notice at least 10 days before any hearing in this state. Strict compliance with these provisions is essential to the validity of a decree: Strict compliance with sections 4 and 5 is essential for the validity of a custody decree within the state and its recognition and enforcement in other states under sections 12, 13 and 15. Note, 9 Uniform Laws Annotated 110 (1973). Yet in the present case, no notice or opportunity to be heard was ever given to the aunt and uncle who had physical custody of the child on June 19, 1975, when the father's modification petition was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The father acted quickly to obtain a modified order  only seventeen days after his petition was filed. There was no compliance with Sections 4 and 5. Thus, there can be no requirement of recognition and enforcement under Section 13. A more difficult question arises under Section 14, which requires deference to the continuing jurisdiction of the court which first granted a custody decree. The central idea of that section is that once a state court has made a custody decree, that state retains an almost exclusive jurisdiction to modify the decree unless it (1) no longer has jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with the Act; or (2) has declined to assume jurisdiction to modify the decree; and (3) the court of this state has jurisdiction. (See, Commissioners' Note to Section 14.) In this case the initial custody decree granted the child to her mother. At that point California became the prior state and petitions for modification were to be addressed to its courts, as was the father's petition. The father's petition, however, did not give the California court jurisdiction to modify the child's custody because of the failure to notify the persons who had physical custody of her. The father had a duty to notify the California court that persons not party to his action for modification had physical custody of the child, Section 9(a)(3) UCCJA, Cal.Civ.Code section 5158(1)(c), and that court was required to order those persons to be joined as parties and to notify them of the pending action. Section 10 UCCJA, Cal.Civ.Code section 5159. The father has maintained throughout this action that the proper forum in which to hear the aunt and uncle's petition is the Los Angeles County Superior Court, yet he neglected the mandatory procedures by which the aunt and uncle would have been made parties to the California action which he commenced in 1975. Now he argues that the matter must be heard once again in California. We do not believe that the UCCJA requires such a result. Ordinarily if a state which has entered a decree still has jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act, section 40-4-211 MCA, its courts must be looked to ahead of the courts of another state which subsequently gains jurisdiction. Thus, we must inquire whether California still has jurisdiction under Section 3. Plainly it does not have jurisdiction under Section 3(a)(1) because California is no longer the child's home state. Nor does it have jurisdiction under Section 3(a)(3) because the child is not present in California, or under Section 3(a)(4) because the Montana court has assumed jurisdiction under facts which meet Section 3(a)(3). The only remaining section is 3(a)(2), section 40-4-211(1)(b) MCA: A court of this state competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: ... (b) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because: (i) the child and his parents or the child and at least one contestant have a significant connection with this state; and (ii) there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships. The Oregon Supreme Court recently considered whether the courts of Indiana were the more appropriate forum for resolution of a custody dispute under this section in a case in which Indiana had entered the first decree. The mother had secreted two children ages 4 and 8 away from their father who was still in Indiana. Some months after they had left Indiana, she petitioned an Oregon court for a modification of the Indiana decree. It was not until the children had been away from Indiana for eighteen months that the Oregon court heard the case. The Supreme Court observed that the passage of time had eliminated any significant connection with Indiana that the children had once had: ... at the time of the hearing by the trial court the children had no significant connection with Indiana because of the length of time they had been away. In the lives of children 4 and 8 years of age, 18 months is a long time. Marriage of Settle (1976), 276 Or. 759, 556 P.2d 962, 966. In the present case the passage of time has created an identical loss of significant connection between the child and California. She was five years of age when she was left with her Montana relatives. Two years had passed by the time of the hearing, and nearly two more have since elapsed. As the Oregon Supreme Court noted, jurisdiction under Section 3(a)(2) exists only when it is in the best interest of the child because the child and its parents have a significant connection with a state and there is optimum access to relevant evidence. Settle, 556 P.2d at 966. See also, Commissioners' Note, 9 Uniform Laws Annotated 107-08 (1973). In this case there is neither. California does not now have jurisdiction under the Act and did not have jurisdiction at the time of the hearing in August 1977. Thus, the District Court was free to enter a new custody order. The second principal issue raised by this appeal is whether the District Court abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of the father and mother. There is more than sufficient substantial, credible evidence to support the findings and judgment of the District Court in relation to the natural parents. The concern has been advanced that the father was not equally culpable. It is undisputed that he had misrepresented his assets to the Superior Court and thereby reduced his potential support obligation. It is a matter of record that the California court was forced to threaten the father with a contempt citation to induce him to provide for his child. These matters in themselves have not been thought to justify a termination of parental rights. See Matter of J.L.B. (1979), Mont., 954 P.2d 1127, 1135, 36 St. Rep. 896, 906-07. Nor may the abuse or neglect which the mother and her boyfriend may have shown be attributed to the father. Matter of T.E.R. (1979), Mont., 590 P.2d 1117, 1121, 36 St.Rep. 276, 281. We find, however, two circumstances to be particularly supportive of the District Court's conclusion that the father had neglected his minor child. First, the father failed to notify the juvenile authorities concerning the plight of his daughter. According to the father's mother, the child repeatedly complained of abuse by her mother's boyfriend over a period of at least one and one-half years. One of the attorneys consulted by the father, Mr. Gewirtz, advised him to notify the juvenile authorities, but the father did not. Second, it is significant that in May 1975, when the mother forced the child out of her apartment, the child's paternal grandmother, not her father, took care of her. The evidence shows that the child's grandmother took the greatest interest in her while she was living with her mother. The grandmother, not the father, kept her at her home over many weekends. The District Court found specifically that the grandmother was the principal force behind the father's belated attempts to obtain custody of his daughter. It also found that no viable parent-child relationship has ever existed between the father and child. We must measure these findings against some objective criteria to determine whether the father's conduct amounted to neglect and abuse of parental authority. The abuse of parental authority is the subject of judicial cognizance in a civil action brought by the child or by its relative within the third degree or by the county commissioners of the county where the child resides. When the abuse is established, the child may be freed from the dominion of the parent and the duty of support and education enforced. Section 40-6-233 MCA. In the absence of standards defining abuse in this section, we refer to the standards contained in Chapter 3 of Title 41 on child abuse, neglect, and dependency. Section 41-3-102(2) MCA provides: `Abuse' or `neglect' means: (a) the commission or omission of any act or acts which materially affect the normal physical or emotional development of a youth. Any excessive physical injury, sexual assault, or failure to thrive, taking into account the age and medical history of the youth, shall be presumed to be nonaccidental and to materially affect the normal development of the youth. (b) the commission or omission of any act or acts by any person in the status of parent, guardian, or custodian who thereby and by reason of physical or mental incapacity or other cause refuses or, with state and private aid and assistance, is unable to discharge the duties and responsibilities for proper and necessary subsistence, education, medical, or any other care necessary for the youth's physical, moral, and emotional well-being. We held in Matter of J.L.B., 594 P.2d at 1136, 36 St.Rep. at 908, that parental deficiencies by themselves, absent some harm to the child, are an insufficient basis upon which to terminate parental rights. In the present case the child was undoubtedly harmed, although not directly and solely by her father. Yet, he knew of his daughter's circumstances and did nothing to intervene on her behalf. A child in her position has a right to expect more. The father's argument that the courts of California would not modify the original custody without proof of the child's mistreatment wears thin in light of the father's failure to even notify the juvenile authorities that something was wrong. The father's attempt to blame the California court system for his own failure to seek aid for his child for more than a year will not suffice. The District Court concluded that the father had abused his parental authority by neglecting and abandoning his child under these circumstances. We do not find this to be an abuse of the District Court's discretion to weigh the evidence before it and arrive at a clear and convincing view of the facts. See Matter of J.L.B., 594 P.2d at 1136, 36 St.Rep. at 908-09. The final issue presented is whether the District Court had authority to name the child's aunt and uncle as her general guardians. The father contends that the aunt and uncle's complaint did not specifically request the creation of a guardianship and therefore the District Court could not name them as guardians. We do not agree. The complaint filed in this action sought: (1) To terminate the parental rights of the natural parents; (2) to award full care and custody of the child to her aunt and uncle; (3) to obtain a restraining order against the mother's boyfriend to prevent him from molesting the child; and, (4) for such other relief as the District Court deemed proper. The District Court clearly had power to authorize a guardianship, the effect of which gives the court continuing supervisory authority over the aunt and uncle's care and provision for the child, under the fourth paragraph of the prayer for relief. Rule 54(c), M.R.Civ.P., provides in part: Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings. See, Smith v. Zepp (1977), Mont., 567 P.2d 923, 930, 34 St.Rep. 753, 762; 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2662 at 96-97. The statute under which plaintiffs proceeded, section 61-111, R.C.M. 1947, now section 40-6-233 MCA, clearly gives the District Court jurisdiction to terminate parental rights: ... [and] when the abuse is established, the child may be freed from the dominion of the parent ... Upon the proper termination of parental rights, a District Court is empowered to name a suitable guardian of an unmarried minor. Section 72-5-222 MCA. See Guardianship of Aschenbrenner (1979), Mont., 597 P.2d 1156, 36 St.Rep. ___. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. HASWELL, C.J., and HARRISON, SHEA and SHEEHY, JJ., concur.