Opinion ID: 883477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the district court erred by ordering

Text: THE CHILDREN TO ATTEND THE CHURCH OF FATHER'S CHOICE WHILE THEY WERE IN MOTHER'S CUSTODIAL CARE IN VIOLATION OF HER FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND MONT. CODE ANN. § 40-4-218 (1993) . . . . . . . 22 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...29 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page Angel v. Angel, 140 N.E.2d 86 (Ohio C.P. 1956) . . . . . 25 In re the Custody of C.S.F., 232 Mont. 204, 755 P.2.d 578 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6 In re the Marriage of Allison, Mont. 887 P.2d 1217 (1994) . . . . .T. . . ..: . . . 10,11,21 In re the Marriage of Alnert, 258 Mont. 344, 852 P.2d 669 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,9 In re the Matter of B.T., 223 Mont. 287, 725 P.2d 230 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 In re the Marriage of Gahm, 222 Mont. 300, 722 P.2d 1138 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 In re the Marriaae of Gersovitz, 238 Mont. 506, 779 P.2d 883 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,23 In re the Marriage of Hoodennvle, 241 Mont. 345, 787 P.2d 326 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 In re the Marriage of Johnson, 266 Mont. 158, 879 P.2d 689 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,10,11,12,13 In re the Marriage of Paradis, 213 Mont. 177, 689 P.2d 1263 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Khalsa v. Khalsa, 751 P.2d 715, (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489 P.2d 1133 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 OTHER AUTHORITIES Montana Code Annotated § 40-4-212 (1993) . . . . . . 2,8-11 Montana Code Annotated § 40-4-218 (1993) . . . . . . 22,27 Montana Code Annotated § 40-4-219 (1993) . . . 1,2,7-16,27 Montana Code Annotated 5 40-4-220 (1993) . . 1,20,21,22,27 iii STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The issues for consideration on appeal is whether the district court erred by substantially changing the primary residence of the parties' children, thereby modifying the Final Decree, where there was no motion for modification before the court, no finding of the statutory criteria set forth at Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-219 (1993) and no affidavit establishing the statutory requirements set forth at Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-220 (1993). Also, Plaintiff/Appellant appeals the district court order requiring her to assure the children attend the religion of his choice. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County (district court), heard Petitioner/Appellant's (Peggy) motions for Final Determination of Visitation Rights and Contempt on October 20 and 21, 1994. Peggy had been the children's primary custodian since the dissolution of the parties' marriage. At that time, the children were residing Sunday morning through Thursday night with their mother and Thursday night through Sunday morning with their father. No motion for modification was before the district court at the October hearing, nor had Respondent/Respondent (Terry) filed an affidavit alleging facts which would warrant modification. The district court issued its Memorandum, Opinion and Order [hereinafter December Order] on December 1 16, 1994. The December Order removed Peggy as the children's primary custodian and provided that the schoolage children would spend equal time with each parent, switching on a weekly basis. The December Order substantially changed the custodial arrangements of the parties'~ children and, therefore, the district court should have made a finding that the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth at Mont. Code Ann § 40-4-219 (1993) had been met. Instead, the district court erroneously proceeded directly to the best interests I1 test set forth at Mont. Code Ann. § 40-4-212 (1993): In a prior proceedins and in the December Order, the district court ordered Peggy to assure the children attend Terry's church over the objection fo Peggy. STATEMENTOF FACTS 1. The parties were married on June 18, 1977, in Bozenan, Montana (Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree of Dissolution of Marriage [hereinafter Final Decree], page 1, paragraph 3). 2. Two children were born of the parties' marriage, Jesse B. Schaplow, born July 15, 1981; and Michael J. Schaplow, born May 29, 1984 (Final Decree at 2, para. 4). 3. The parties' marriage was dissolved by order of the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, dated May 6, 1991, the Honorable Thomas A. Olson, 2 District Judge (Final Decree at 4). 4. The parties entered into a Separation, Custody and Property Settlement Agreement [hereinafter ltAgreement] on May 6 1991, which was incorporated by reference into the Final Decree (Final Decree at 2, para. 10; Agreement, page 2, paragraph 3). 5. The Final Decree provided for joint custody of the parties' two minor children and designated Peggy as the primary residential parent (Final Decree at 3; Agreement at 7, para. 2). 6. The parties have utilized the services of numerous mediators since the dissolution of their marriage, in several unsuccessful attempts to reach a mutually acceptable custody and visitation schedule, including Dr. Charles Kelly (Agreement at 7); Dr. Marvin Backer (Agreement at 7); Guardian ad Litem, Eleanor N. Truitt; Dr. Traynham; Retired District Judge Joseph B. Gary; and Retired District Judge Jack Levitt. (See Respondent's Motion for Determination of Summer Custody Schedule and Request for Expedited Telephonic Hearing, dated June 8, 1995). 7. The parties changed the visitation schedule set forth in the Final Decree in December of 1992, to provide that Terry would have the children from Thursday evening through Sunday morning; however, Peggy remained as the children's primary residential parent (Agreement at 7). 8. The visitation schedule was modified again, after 3 a telephone hearing on November 26, 1993, to provide for the children's participation in two five-week ski programs and for their attendance in Sunday School during the 1994 ski season (Order, dated November 26, 1993 [hereinafter November Order, page 2, lines 22-28). 9. On April 4, 1994, after assignment by the district court as a meditor, Judge Levitt recommended that the parties implement a weekly visitation schedule and remove the primary residential parent designation (Dec. Order at 3, 11. l-6). 10. Both parties objected to the visitation schedule recommended by Judge Levitt and, pursuant to another telephone hearing on August 9, 1994, the parties reverted to the visitation schedule set forth in the court's November Order wherein Peggy remained designated as the children's primary residential parent. 11. In this November Order, the district court ordered Peggy to assure the children attend Terry's church (Nov. Order). 12. Peggy filed Motions for Final Determination of Visitation Rights and Contempt and both were heard by the district court on October 20 and 21, 1995. The district court issued its Order on December 16, 1995, and it is from that December Order that Peggy now appeals. 4 ARGUMENT