SHELHAMER v DIST COURT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12202 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1972 The S t a t e o f Montana ex rel., ROBERT DUANE SHELHAMER , Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT O THE FOURTEENTH F i m a r c u L DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY OF A MUSSELSHELL and THE HON. N T ALLEN, p r e s i d i n g judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel o f Record: For Relator : Robert L. S t e p h e n s , Jr. a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. F o r Respondents : Ask and Brower, Roundup, Montana. John L. P r a t e a r g u e d , Roundup, Montana. - --- Submitted : F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1972 Decided: MAR 6 - 1972 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. T h i s i s a n o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g wherein r e l a t o r s o u g h t a n a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t t o r e q u i r e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f an o r d e r e n t e r ed by t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t i n a contempt proceeding. From t h e r e c o r d it a p p e a r s t h a t i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g e n t i t l e d P h y l l i s A , Shelhamer, P l a i n t i f f , v. Robert Duane Shelhamer, Defendant, pending i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f M u s s e l s h e l l County, wherein a d e c r e e o f d i v o r c e was e n t e r e d on October 7 , 1968, t h e p l a i n t i f f e x e c u t e d an a f f i d a v i t i n re contempt. I t was a l l e g e d t h e r e i n that t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t p a i d c e r t a i n s u p p o r t money as r e q u i r e d by t h e aforementioned decree, and prayed t h a t an o r d e r t o show c a u s e b e i s s u e d r e q u i r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e , if any he h a d , why he s h o u l d n o t b e h e l d i n contempt of c o u r t , and a l s o pay p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s f o r t h e proceeding. The r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e under d a t e o f September 2 4 , 1971, r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r b e f o r e it on October 8 , 1971. The h e a r i n g was c o n t i n u e d t o October 1 8 , 1971, a t which t i m e t h e p a r t i e s appeared i n c o u r t and t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n from e a c h side as t o t h e d e l i n q u e n c i e s i n s u p p o r t payments and e x c u s e s f o r nonpayment t h e r e o f . Respondent c o u r t d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g e x p r e s s e d i t s d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e custody provisions contained i n t h e o r i g i n a l decree, found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d r e n , f i n e d him, and o v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f h i s c o u n s e l d i r e c t e d a change b e made i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . A f o r m a l o r d e r was t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d on November 5 , 1971. I t i s conceded by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e i s s u e h e r e i s whether o r n o t t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n u n i l a t e r a l l y t e r m i n a t i n g r e l a t o r ' s p a r t i a l c u s t o d y r i g h t s g r a n t e d by a p r i o r d i v o r c e d e c r e e a t a contempt h e a r i n g f o r nonsupport w i t h o u t r e q u e s t by t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y f o r t h e r e l i e f g r a n t e d and w i t h o u t n o t i c e t o t h e r e l a t o r t h a t h i s r i g h t of p a r t i a l c u s t o d y would be a t i s s u e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c h i l d c u s t o d y matters and h a s t h e c o n t i n u i n g power t o modify o r d e r s and change c u s t o d y , a l l a s provided i n s e c t i o n 21-138, R.C.M. 1947, which r e a d s : "Orders r e s p e c t i n g c u s t o d y o f c h i l d r e n . In an a c t i o n f o r d i v o r c e t h e c o u r t o r judge may, b e f o r e o r a f t e r judgment, g i v e such d i r e c t i o n f ~ t h e c u s t o d y , care, and e d u c a t i o n o f t h e r c h i l d r e n of t h e m a r r i a g e as may seem necess a r y o r p r o p e r , and may a t any t i m e v a c a t e o r modify t h e same." A s w e s t a t e d i n Barbour v. Barbour, 134 Mont. 317, 324, "The e f f e c t of R.C.M. 1947, s e c t i o n 21-138, i s t o make a l l c h i l d c u s t o d y o r d e r s i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n nature, discretionary with the d i s t r i c t court, and c o n d i t i o n e d by what t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n i t s sound d i s c r e t i o n b e l i e v e s t o be f o r t h e well-being o f t h e c h i l d concerned. * * * " T h i s does n o t c o n t e m p l a t e , however, t h a t due p r o c e s s s h o u l d n o t b e observed. Here w e have a show c a u s e o r d e r f o r n o n s u p p o r t , no r e q u e s t f o r a change o f c u s t o d y ; n o t h i n g i n t h e p l e a d i n g s t o i n d i c a t e a change i n c u s t o d y was s o u g h t . The language used by t h e Supreme C o u r t of Maine i n Remick v. R o l l i n s , 1 4 1 M e . 65, 38 A.2d 883, 884, a p p e a r s p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate: "There was no p r a y e r i n t h e p e t i t i o n t o change any p r o v i s i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l decree as t o c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t t h e new d e c r e e makes an a l t e r a t i o n i n t h a t r e s p e c t . Established practice gives p a r t i e s a r i g h t t o assume t h a t no change w i l l b e made on a n i s s u e which i s n o t f o r m a l l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t by t h e p e t i t i o n o r p l e a d i n g s . " To t h e same e f f e c t i s t h e s t a t e m e n t c o n t a i n e d i n S c o t t v. S c o t t , 174 Iowa 740, 156 N.W. 834, 836, wherein t h e Iowa c o u r t h e l d : "The m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e , by s t r i k i n g t h e r e f r o m t h e p r o v i s i o n r e b a t i n g t o t h e cust o d y of t h e c h i l d , was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y . T h i s o r d e r was e n t e r e d a t t h e t e r m followi n g t h a t a t which t h e d e c r e e w a s e n t e r e d , and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y have been made on t h e c o u r t ' s own motion o r w i t h o u t notice to the plaintiff." I n Welch v. Welch, 256 Iowa 1020, 129 N.W.2d 642, 643, t h e Iowa c o u r t i n r u l i n g i n t h e same v e i n , s t a t e d : "Nothing i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r amendment t h e r e t o sets o u t any change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e was e n t e r e d t h a t s u p p o r t s a change i n i t s c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n s n o r i n d i c a t e s a d e s i r e t h e r e f o r . The i s s u e o f c u s t o d y was n o t r a i s e d . * * * " Respondent c i t e s t h e case o f P e a r c e v. Pearce, (1904) 30 Mont. 2 6 9 , 76 P. 289, as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t on i t s own motion may i n q u i r e i n t o t h e f a c t s r e s p e c t i n g c h i l d c u s t o d y and make a n a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r . W e must b e a r i n mind t h a t i n P e a r c e b o t h p a r t i e s were b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and t h e i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e p l e a d i n g s w a s t h a t a change of c u s t o d y o f t h e minor c h i l d s h o u l d be made t o t h e f a t h e r , and s u c h p r a y e r w a s g r a n t e d and t h e ex-wife appealed. I n t h e c o u r s e of i t s o p i n i o n t h i s C o u r t stated: " * * * If i t makes a m i s t a k e i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , it may and s h o u l d remedy t h e same, upon a p r o p e r showing, as soon t h e r e a f t e r as p o s s i b l e ; and t h e l a w , i n i t s b e n e f i c e n c e , and w i t h a t e n d e r care f o r t h e i n f a n t s , h a s provided t h e means * * * .I1 (Emphasis o u r s . ) I n Brice v. Brice ( 1 9 1 5 ) , 50 Mont. 388, 147 P. 164, t h i s C o u r t , c i t i n g P e a r c e a s a u t h o r i t y , stated: " * * * Under s e c t i o n 3678 t h e c o u r t may, i n any case, b e f o r e o r a f t e r judgment, make such p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e c h i l d as t h e circums t a n c e s r e q u i r e ; f o r though under t h e decree t h e husband may be relieved e n t i r e l y from any o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e w i f e , t h e c o u r t may n e v e r t h e l e s s , under s e c t i o n 3678, upon p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n , make such o r d e r f o r t h e i r c u s t o d y and maintenance as t h e circums t a n c e s j u s t i f y . * * * " (Emphasis o u r s . ) No such p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n had been made t o t h e c o u r t i n t h e cause here being considered. W e are n o t h e r e d e a l i n g w i t h c o m p l a i n t s made t o t h e c o u r t w i t h r e s p e c t t o l a c k o f c a r e and maintenance by p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s ; c e r t a i n l y i n such i n s t a n c e s t h e c o u r t upon s u c h showing may make any and a l l o r d e r s n e c e s s a r y and p r o p e r t o see t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s c u s t o d y i s t e m p o r a r i l y p l a c e d where it can be c a r e d f o r ; t h e r e a f t e r g i v i n g n o t i c e t o t h e p a r e n t s as pro- v i d e d by l a w , and i f a permanent change i n c u s t o d y a p p e a r s to t h e c o u r t t o be n e c e s s a r y t h e n due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a n app l i c a t i o n be made f o r t h a t purpose and p r o p e r n o t i c e o f s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n be given. W hold t h a t t h e c o u r t h e r e e r r e d i n changing t h e e custody p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e nonsupport contemptproceeding and t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e c o u r t ' s order o f November 5 , 1971, i s ann u l l e d and h e l d for naugh f W e concur: n A' , * " . k u d g 6 , .'sit<ihtj i ~ ' ~ l a ofe M r . c J u s t i c e Wesley c a s t l e s .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
