LOVE v LOVE

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12795 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1974 D R T Y ARLEEN LOVE, OOH P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - ERNEST LOVE, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable F r a n k E. B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Schulz and D a v i s , D i l l o n , Montana C a r l M. Davis a p p e a r e d and John Warren, a r g u e d , D i l l o n , Montana F o r Respondent : N e i l H a i g h t a r g u e d , Helena, Montana W. G. G i l b e r t , 111, a p p e a r e d , D i l l o n , Montana Submitted: ?..t'i"' ; . : ,! ![ - 2, ,? 7 q 4 t Filed : Clerk November 21, 1974 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a d i v o r c e and c h i l d custody c a s e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e f i f t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county o f Beaverhead, g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f mother Dorothy Arleen Love a divorce but granted custody of two minor c h i l d r e n t o defendant f a t h e r E r n e s t Love. P l a i n t i f f moved t o a l t e r and amend t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law and f o r a new t r i a l , which motions were denied and a p p e a l was taken. Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n : 1. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by awarding custody o f t h e ~ a r t i e s 'two minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r where t h e r e was no evidence showing t h e mother was n o t a f i t and proper person t o b e e n t r u s t e d w i t h t h e custody of h e r c h i l d r e n ? 2. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l ? P l a i n t i f f mother and defendant f a t h e r had been married p r e v i o u s l y , n o t o n l y t o each o t h e r , b u t t o persons n o t p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n . The mother married a Iqr. Vezina i n 1945 and had t h r e e c h i l d r e n by him. The t h r e e c h i l d r e n of t h i s marriage a r e Robert, a g e 27; Linda, age 25; and Steven, age 14. This marriage terminated w i t h M r . Vezina's d e a t h i n 1959. The f a t h e r w a s married p r e v i o u s l y and h a s f i v e c h i l d r e n by o t h e r women. These c h i l d r e n a r e Danny, age 21; Dennis, age 18; Dale, age 14; Marie S u z e t t e , age 13; and Robert age 5. None of t h e s e c h i l d r e n has e v e r been i n h i s custody a f t e r a d i v o r c e , n o r has he e v e r c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e i r support. The c h i l d r e n o f t h e p r e s e n t marriage are John aged 11; and J e f f r e y aged 4 . The c h i l d r e n o f ~ o r o t h y ' smarriage t o M r . Vezina have been i n h e r custody throughout t h e i r l i v e s and have been r a i s e d w i t h t h e Love c h i l d r e n a s s i b l i n g s , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e i r b i o l o g i c a l h a l f blood r e l a t i o n s h i p . P a r t i c u l a r l y i s t h i s t r u e with respect t o t h e younger ones who have been r a i s e d t o g e t h e r a s b r o t h e r s . Defendant Ernest i s unable t o work due t o d i s a b i l i t i e s and l i v e s on approximately $330 p e r month from s o c i a l s e c u r i t y and Veterans D i s a b i l i t y b e n e f i t payments. h i s income w i t h odd job work. H e o c c a s i o n a l l y supplements A t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i v o r c e , he had a n e q u i t y of over $1,000 i n a small home valued a t approximately $6,000. P l a i n t i f f Dorothy's income was $352 monthly, c o n s i s t i n g o f $164 r e p r e s e n t i n g S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r h e r son Steven Vezina, $108 S o c i a l S e c u r i t y b e n e f i t s f o r h e r s e l f and t h e p a r t i e s 1 two c h i l d r e n ; and approximately $80 i n wages f o r a c l e a n i n g job. Due t o t h e d i v o r c e and t h e g i v i n g of custody of t h e two c h i l d r e n t o defendant f a t h e r h e r income from s o c i a l s e c u r i t y f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h o s e c h i l d r e n terminated. According t o t h e testimony one problem of t h e marriage concerned Dorothy's o l d e s t son, Robert. Dorothy t e s t i f i e d t h a t E r n e s t was j e a l o u s o f a l l h e r c h i l d r e n by Vezina b u t p a r t i c u l a r l y Robert whom E r n e s t t e s t i f i e d w s an a l c o h o l i c and used drugs. Robert i s a V i e t Nam v e t e r a n who r e c e i v e s t r e a t m e n t a t F o r t Harrison Veterans h o s p i t a l i n Helena. H i s d i s a b i l i t i e s were n o t designated. Whatever Robert Vezina's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e p a r t i e s ' m a r i t a l d i f f i c u l i t i e s , i t was confused by t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h t h e r o l e played by Steven t h e 14 y e a r o l d . The t r i a l c o u r t a s c r i b e d R o b e r t ' s c h a r a c t e r t o Steven, even though Robert had n o t l i v e d a t t h e family home f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s , although he v i s i t e d t h e r e and w a s i n D i l l o n a t t h e t i m e Dorothy was e i t h e r ordered o u t o f t h e home, a s s h e t e s t i f i e d , o r l e f t o f h e r own f r e e w i l l , a s Ernest t e s t i f i e d . Both p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e 14 y e a r o l d Steven n e v e r caused any problems and i n f a c t was a f i n e i n f l u e n c e on h i s younger b r o t h e r s . Dorothy a r g u e s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t based i t s d e c i s i o n on a d e s i r e t o s e p a r a t e t h e p a r t i e s 1 c h i l d r e n from Robert, who seldom v i s i t s h i s mother, and a r e a d i n g of t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s i s t h e problem. previous f i n d i n g : The c o u r t found i n i t s m o d i f i c a t i o n o r d e r o f a !?hat p l a i n t i f f and defendant have had much trouble over t h e v i s i t s of Robert Vezina, a son of t h e p l a i n t i f f by a previous marriage. The c o u r t ' s d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e custody of t h e Love c h i l d r e n w i l l c o r r e c t t h e s i t u a t i o n s o t h a t 14rs. Love can e n t e r t a i n h e r son, Robert, i n h e r home from time t o t i m e a s occasion r e q u i r e s and enjoy every o t h e r week-end w i t h t h e two boys involved i n t h i s a c t i o n . " Here, t h e p r i n c i p a l i s s u e i s t o determine whether, under t h e f a c t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding t h e custody of t h e two minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r , r a t h e r than t o t h e mother. N evidence c o n t e s t e d o r d i s p u t e d t h e f i t n e s s o f t h e mother t o o have custody of t h e c h i l d r e n . The t r i a l c o u r t noted i n i t s memorandum t h a t w h i l e he made no r u l i n g on h e r f i t n e s s t o have custody, t h a t : II There was no occasion t o do s o s i n c e t h e p r i n c i p a l c a r e and custody w a s placed i n t h e i r f a t h e r . The law n e i t h e r does n o r r e q u i r e s i d l e a c t s . See s e c t i o n 49-124, R.C.M. 1947. U l " "Complaint i s made because we found i t was f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e s e two boys t o be r a i s e d by t h e i r f a t h e r . W d i d n o t want t o s e p a r a t e t h e s e boys. W e e interviewed t h e o l d e r boy and found no reason i n t h e i n t e r v i e w , t o award them t o t h e mother. I n f a c t , t h e Court observed P l a i n t i f f and Defendant v e r y c a r e f u l l y w h i l e t e s t i f y i n g and based upon h i s t r i a l p r a c t i c e of 50 y e a r s i n v o l v i n g such m a t t e r s , a r r i v e d a t t h e conc l u s i o n t h a t t h e s e two boys would be much b e t t e r c a r e d f o r by t h e i r f a t h e r . The h a t r e d by t h e P l a i n t i f f f o r t h e i r f a t h e r , w a s q u i t e a p p a r e n t and h e r r e f u s a l t o permit him t o s e e them p r i o r t o t h e t r i a l was i n d e f e n s i b l e . * Jc *.I1 T h i s perhaps was t h e b a s i s upon which t h e t r i a l judge made h i s d e c i s i o n n o t t o make a f i n d i n g of f i t n e s s f o r t h e mother f o r t h e r e c o r d i s b a r e of any evidence t h a t s h e was n o t a good mother. R.ecognizing t h a t t h e t r i a l judge h a s w e l l over 50 y e a r s of t r i a l e x p e r i e n c e , we cannot b u t h e l p observe t h a t i n most d i v o r c e s , and e s p e c i a l l y c a s e s where t h e custody of c h i l d r e n i s b e i n g determined, t h a t d i s l i k e o r h a t r e d evidenced by t h e c o n t e s t a n t s i s n o t novel n o r unusual. I n custody c a s e s , a s h e r e , t h e c o u r t should determine t h e f i t n e s s of both p a r t i e s and i t was e r r o r n o t t o so r u l e h e r e , where we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s . Against t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t t h e mother evidenced h a t r e d f o r t h e f a t h e r , we have a r e c o r d made i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t of a t o t a l f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t o f t h a t f a t h e r t o make any e f f o r t t o s u p p o r t c h i l d r e n o f o t h e r marriages even though i n one i n s t a n c e he was taken t o c o u r t t o e n f o r c e t h e payments t o some of t h o s e c h i l d r e n and found g u i l t y of contempt. The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t o r y law i s s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. and t h e c a s e s a r i s i n g thereunder. 1947, The p e r t i n e n t p a r t s of t h i s statute are: "Rules of awarding custody of minors. I n awarding t h e custody of a minor, o r i n a p p o i n t i n g a g e n e r a l guardian, t h e c o u r t o r o f f i c e r i s t o be guided by t h e following c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : "1. By what a p p e a r s t o be f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d i n r e s p e c t t o i t s temporal and i t s mental and moral w e l f a r e , and i f t h e c h i l d b e of s u f f i c i e n t age t o form an i n t e l l i g e n t p r e f e r e n c e , t h e c o u r t may c o n s i d e r t h a t p r e f e r e n c e i n determining t h e q u e s t i o n . "2. A s between p a r e n t s a d v e r s e l y claiming t h e custody o r guardianship, n e i t h e r parent i s e n t i t l e d t o i t a s of r i g h t ; b u t o t h e r t h i n g s b e i n g e q u a l , i f t h e c h i l d be of t e n d e r y e a r s , i t should be given t o t h e mother; i f i t b e of an age t o r e q u i r e education and p r e p a r a t i o n f o r l a b o r o r b u s i n e s s , then t o t h e f a t h e r . " The t r i a l judge i n h i s memorandum quoted from D m v . Damrn, am 82 Mont. 239, 247, 266 P. 410, noted: ** "* and i t i s o n l y on a showing of manifest abuse o f such d i s c r e t i o n t h a t t h e award made by t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i l l be d i s t u r b e d . " W a g r e e t h a t t h i s i s a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r on review, b u t i n e looking a t ~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t o r y law s e c t i o n 91-4515 ( 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, we n o t e t h a t t h i s Court has i n i t s r e c e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e l a i d c o n s i d e r a b l e import t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e mother i n t h e c a s e o f c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s . Here, w e have two young boys John Michael, age 11, and J e f f e r y , age 4. They have grown up w i t h t h e i r h a l f - b r o t h e r Stephen, age 14, who everyone a g r e e s i s a f i n e young man and who h a s much good i n f l u e n c e over h i s younger brothers. W can s e e no b e n e f i t i n t a k i n g t h e two boys away from e t h e i n f l u e n c e of a good mother and an exemplary o l d e r b r o t h e r and awarding them t o a f a t h e r because t h e c o u r t d i d n o t want t o s e p a r a t e t h e blood b r o t h e r s . This Court i n a r e c e n t c a s e , McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 1189, where custody had been given t h e f a t h e r due t o t h e emotional d i f f i c u l t i e s of t h e mother a t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e , awarded h e r custody a f t e r a h e a r i n g t h a t showed t h e mother and had had. r e m a r r i e d , had overcome h e r emotional d i f f i c u l t i e s q u i t a job i n o r d e r t o r a i s e h e r c h i l d . The Court found t h a t i t .was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d t o be r a i s e d by t h e mother. T h i s Court i n Hoppe v. Hoppe, 138 Mont. 239, 241, 356 P.2d 44, c i t i n g Freeland v. F r e e l a n d , 99 Wash. 482, 159 P. 699, speaking t o t h e l o g i c of o u r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s noted: 11 1 Mother l o v e i s a dominant t r a i t i n even t h e weakest of women, and a s a g e n e r a l t h i n g s u r p a s s e s t h e p a t e r n e l a f f e c t i o n f o r t h e common o f f s p r i n g , and, moreover, a c h i l d needs a mother's c a r e even more than a f a t h e r ' s . For t h e s e r e a s o n s c o u r t s a r e l o a t h e t o d e p r i v e t h e mother of t h e custody of h e r c h i l d r e n , and w i l l n o t do s o u n l e s s i t i s shown c l e a r l y t h a t she i s s o f a r an u n f i t and i m proper person t o be i n t r u s t e d w i t h such custody a s t o endanger t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n ! " See a l s o : Trudgen v. Trudgen, 134 Mont. 174, 176, 329 P.2d I n an e a r l i e r c a s e , b u t i n l i n e w i t h t h e philosophy of t h i s Court, i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e custody of c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s , Ex p a r t e Bourquin, 88 Mont. 118, 124, 290 P. 250, t h i s Court s a i d : ** W conceive t h e law t o b e t h a t i t i s our d u t y e t o award t h e i n f a n t c h i l d t o t h e mother, u n l e s s she h a s by h e r conduct f o r f e i t e d t h a t r i g h t , t h a t i s , t h a t i t be made t o appear t h a t t h e mother i s u n f i t o r i n competent t o t a k e charge o f i t , o r u n l e s s t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d f o r some s p e c i a l o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y reason demands a d i f f e r e n t d i s p o s i t i o n . I I I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f mother was u n f i t t o have custody of t h e s e c h i l d r e n , n e i t h e r was any evidence i n t r o d u c e d s u g g e s t i n g a " s p e c i a l o r e x t r a o r d i n a r y reason" f o r n o t f i n d i n g h e r a f i t person t o have custody. The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o award t h e custody of t h e two minor c h i l d r e n t o p l a i n t i f f mother, s u b j e c t t o such v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s f o r t h e f a t h e r a s t h e c o u r t may s e e a s f i t and proper. 4 * 4 /f _ Justice r 7- i - W e Concur: Chi* Justice - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - e m - - - - - - - Justices. Mr. J u s t i c e Haswell s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g . I concur i n t h e r e s u l t b u t n o t i n a l l t h a t i s s a i d i n t h e foregoing opinion. S p e c i f i c a l l y I do n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n a l l c a s e s s h o u l d r u l e on t h e f i t n e s s o f b o t h p a r e n t s f o r c u s t o d y of c h i l d r e n o f t e n d e r y e a r s . I n many c a s e s , t h e m o t h e r ' s c l a i m t o c u s t o d y of a s m a l l c h i l d w i l l p r e v a i l i r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e f i t n e s s o r u n f i t n e s s of t h e f a t h e r . To re- q u i r e a f i n d i n g of u n f i t n e s s o f t h e f a t h e r i n s u c h a c a s e a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s payment of c h i l d s u p p o r t , e x e r c i s e o f v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s , and r e l a t e d c o n f l i c t s - - a l l without purpose. Justice

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.