Court Opinion

ID: 9791298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:08:38.626316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:35.253851
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BARZ,
dissenting.
I dissent and would remand this case to the District Court on several grounds. The District Court completely failed to address or consider sec. 40-4-203(2)(b), MCA, in determining an appropriate award of maintenance. That factor in light of the maintenance award in this case is very important: namely the ability of the spouse from whom maintenance is being sought to meet his needs while meeting those of the spouse. Here we have the husband required to pay $800 per month for maintenance plus the wife’s psychotherapy for two years, including hospitalizations and costs of her college for six years without restriction. In addition, the husband is to make house payments for the wife, completely support the children and provide for their counseling, and pay for counseling for himself. There is no evidence whatsoever where he is to find that kind of money other than the assertion that he is a “successful” farmer. The wife testified that she, the husband and children spend approximately $2,000 per month and the husband agreed but did point out that figure included farming expenses as well. Spending $2,000 per month and having the income or means to spend that much are significant differences on which the record is silent.
In Finding of Fact No. 10, the court found:
“10. Petitioner, to one degree or another, suffers from a paranoid disorder which will require at least two years of intensive counseling. There is no evidence that this disorder has adversely affected either of *124the children of the parties hereto; and, at this point, it is purely speculative that said disorder will have an adverse effect in the future.”
In light of the court’s finding and evidence on the five-year-old daughter’s “emotionally disturbed” condition, Finding No. 10 is not only clearly erroneous, it is preposterous. The wife’s mental illness and her bizarre behavior because of it cannot be ignored anymore than the husband’s personality disorder as it related to the best interests of the children. To say there is no adverse effect on either of the children is a naive opinion of the District Court and contrary to the evidence in this case.
In Finding of Fact No. 15, the District Court stated:
“15. The finding is unavoidable that Petitioner’s health problems spring from and are to a large extent result from her physical and emotional abuse and humiliation by the Respondent during the marriage. She is shown to be intelligent, having a pleasing personality and to have been normal before her marriage. She was involved to a degree in some very fundamentalist religious practices during marriage, which caused some waves, but don’t appear to be a major force in her present condition. Her religious and health concerns appear to be coincidental or concurrent or even part of her problem, rather than causal.”
That finding is clearly erroneous if the court is attempting to find the cause of her mental illness. Such a finding of marital misconduct is also contrary to Montana’s no-fault dissolution law.
Dr. Tranel testified that one could not know the causes of the wife’s mental illness of a paranoid disorder, and data showing biological contribution, psychological factors and social contributions to the disorder all interact and need to be considered. Dr. Tranel also pointed out there is a strong school of thought in his profession that believes that the mental disorder is primarily a biochemical malfunction but it was his opinion that that evidence alone is inconclusive. In addition, there was no psychiatric or medical testimony presented during the trial which would allow the District Court to find the causative factor of the wife’s illness. In actuality it serves little purpose to find the causative factor, particularly if it is in fact a genetic condition which is inherited. Regardless, treatment is necessary.
Both Finding No. 10 and Finding No. 15 should be vacated or at least modified. It would appear, unfortunately, that the District Court Judge has not seen the last of this family’s problems in any event.
JUSTICE HARRISON joins in the foregoing dissent of JUSTICE BARZ.