ADOPTION OF BIERY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12617 I N T E SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O M N A A H OR F H F OTN 1974 I N T E M T E O THE ADOPTION H ATR F O DWAYNE BIERY, A MINOR CHILD F Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A l f r e d B. Coate, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : K e l l y and C a r r , Miles C i t y , Montana P a t r i c k J. Kelly argued, Miles C i t y , Montana For Respondent : William F. Meisburger, County A t t o r n e y , argued, Forsyth, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: Jna 8 ,974 A p r i l 23, 1974 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by t h e n a t u r a l mother of a minor c h i l d from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Rosebud county d e c l a r i n g t h a t h e r minor c h i l d remain i n t h e custody of and be adopted by t h e p e t i t i o n e r s . The mother, Mayleen (Biery) Anderson, and Criss Harold Biery were married on December 4, 1966. born as lawful i s s u e of s a i d marriage. were divorced bn September 4, 1968. Todd Dwayne Biery was The f a t h e r and mother Under t h e terms of t h e divorce decree, t h e f a t h e r was awarded custody of t h e minor c h i l d with reasonable v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s i n t h e mother. On February 25, 1969, t h e mother sought t o have t h e decree of divorce modified t o enable h e r t o have t h e custody of s a i d child. That p e t i t i o n w a s denied and custody remained with the father. The f a t h e r maintained custody of t h e c h i l d i n t h e home of h i s s i s t e r and brother-in-law, Katherine Berdahl and Benny 0. Berdahl, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s and respondents h e r e i n , u n t i l t h e a c c i d e n t a l death of t h e f a t h e r , Criss Harold Biery, on February 20, 1973. A week l a t e r t h e respondents p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Rosebud County f o r temporary custody of t h e minor c h i l d and f u r t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r adoption. A order n t o show cause why custody should n o t be granted t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s was i s s u e d t o t h e mother, Mayleen (Biery) Anderson. Subsequently a hearing thereon was h e l d on March 5, 1973, and on A p r i l 23, 1973, a t r i a l w a s had on t h e respondent's p e t i t i o n t o adopt. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ordered both p e t i t i o n e r s ' and t h e n a t u r a l mother's homes t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d by t h e welfare department. Both homes were found s u i t a b l e by t h e welfare department and n o t i c e of t h i s was made i n t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of l a w . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o made f i n d i n g s of fact: "VI. That Respondent, although denied custody o f t h i s c h i l d on two occasions by t h i s Court, has t l y married; l i v e s i n Grand Forks, North Dakota; d e s i r e s t o o b t a i n custody of s a i d c h i l d ; has a s u i t a b l e home f o r t h e r a i s i n g of t h e c h i l d ; and i s joined i n h e r r e q u e s t by h e r p r e s e n t husband. subsequT That Respondent has t e s t i f i e d t h a t her l i f e "VIII. s t y l e has changed; t h a t she now i s mature enough t o r a i s e t h e c h i l d ; t h a t such testimony i s supported by an e x p e r t witness and i s i n no way c o n t r a d i c t e d by evidence produced by P e t i t i o n e r s . s a i d c h i l d has b e n e f i t e d from t h e s t a b l e which h e has been l i v i n g i n one-half years. I' and conclusions of law: "VII. That i t would be f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d , Todd Dwayne Biery, t o remain i n t h e custody o f , and be adopted by t h e p e t i t i o n e r s . I 1 The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i r e c t e d t h a t a f i n a l decree of adoption be entered which w a s done on September 4, 1973. The mottper now appeals from t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t I c o u r t g r a n t i n g ipermanent custody and adoption t o p e t i t i o n e r s . Two i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review: (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding permanent custody t o respondents? (2) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n g r a n t i n g respondents' p e t i t i o n t o adopt? Directing our a t t e n t i o n t o the f i r s t i s s u e , we note t h a t t h i s Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y looked t o the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d i n determining custody . McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 1189; Simon v. Simon, 154 Mont. 193, 461 P.2d 851; Haynes v. F i l l n e r , 106 Mont. 59, 75 P.2d 802. In awarding the custody of a minor, section 91-4515(1) specif i c a l l y provides t h a t t h e court i s t o be guided: "By what appears t o be f o r the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d i n respect t o i t s temporal and i t s mental and moral welfare * * *." The p a r e n t ' s r i g h t t o the custody of h e r minor c h i l d i s not an absolute one, even though i t be conceded t h a t she i s a f i t and proper person. I n a l l such cases t h e c r u c i a l f a c t o r i s the c h i l d ' s welfare, both material and psychological, considering i n p a r t i c u l a r the t i e s of a f f e c t i o n the c h i l d has formed and t h e consequences of breaking those t i e s . It i s apparent t h a t the d i s t r i c t court took i n t o consideration the f a c t t h a t t h e c h i l d had l i v e d with the p e t i t i o n e r s the p a s t four and one-half years, and t h a t he had adapted to those surroundings. To remove the c h i l d from f a m i l i a r surroundings might cause emotional d i s o r i e n t a t i o n i n addition to t h a t already caused by t h e death of h i s f a t h e r . It i s c l e a r from the record t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e t i t i o n e r s and the c h i l d i s extremely close. For these reasons the d i s t r i c t court concluded t h a t i t would be i n t h e c h i l d t s b e s t i n t e r e s t s t o remain with p e t i t i o n e r s . What i s , o r what i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d depends upon the f a c t s and circumstances of each case. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of deciding custody i s a d e l i c a t e one which i s lodged with t h e d i s t r i c t court. The judge hearing o r a l testimony i n such a controversy has a superior advantage i n determining the same, and h i s decision ought n o t t o be disturbed except upon a c l e a r showing of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . McCullough v. McCullough, : - t 159 Mont. -bq 498 P. 2d 1189 ; Anderson v. Anderson, 145 Mont. 244, 400 P.2d 632. W f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence supporting t h e e decision here and accordingly no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding custody t o p e t i t i o n e r s . Thus we affirm t h a t p a r t of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s order. The second i s s u e presented f o r review presents a more d i f f i c u l t problem. The laws of Montana r e l a t i n g to t h e adoption of a minor c h i l d a r e found i n section 61-201, e t seq., R.C.M. 1947. O p a r t i c u l a r importance t o t h i s i s s u e i s section 61-205, f R.C.M. 1947, requiring consent of a n a t u r a l parent of a c h i l d sought t o be adopted unless one of t h e exceptions s e t f o r t h i n t h i s s t a t u t e i s met. The exceptions excusing consent a r e s e t out with p a r t i c u l a r i t y : "An adoption of a c h i l d may be decreed when t h e r e have been f i l e d w r i t t e n consents t o adoption executed by : "(1) Both parents, i f l i v i n g , o r the surviving parent, of a l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d ; provided, t h a t consent s h a l l n o t be required from a f a t h e r o r mother , If (a) adjudged g u i l t y by a court of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n of physical c r u e l t y toward s a i d child; o r , "(b) adjudged t o be a h a b i t u a l drunkard; o r , (c) who has been j u d i c i a l l y deprived of the custody of the c h i l d on account of c r u e l t y o r neglect toward the c h i l d ; o r , " "(d) who has, i n the s t a t e of Montana, o r i n any o t h e r s t a t e of the United S t a t e s , w i l l f u l l y abandoned such c h i l d ; o r "(e) who has caused t h e c h i l d t o be maintained by any public o r p r i v a t e c h i l d r e n ' s i n s t i t u t i o n , c h a r i t a b l e agency, o r any licensed adoption agency, o r the s t a t e department of public welfare of t h e s t a t e of Montana f o r a period of one (1) year without contributing t o t h e support of s a i d c h i l d during s a i d period, i f able; o r , " ( f ) i f i t i s proven t o the s a t i s f a c t i o n of the court t h a t s a i d f a t h e r o r mother, i f able, has n o t contributed t o t h e support of s a i d c h i l d during a period of one (1) year before t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n f o r adoption; o r (an adoption of a c h i l d may be decreed when there have been f i l e d w r i t t e n consents t o adoption executed by). - - - - "(2) The mother, alone, i f the c h i l d i s i l l e g i t i m a t e ; or "(3) The l e g a l guardian of t h e person of the c h i l d i f both parents a r e dead o r i f t h e r i g h t s of t h e parents have been terminated by j u d i c i a l proceedings and such guardian has a u t h o r i t y by order of t h e court appointing him t o consent t o the adoption; o r " ( 4 ) The executive head of an agency i f the c h i l d has been relinquished f o r adoption t o such agency o r i f t h e r i g h t s of the parents have been j u d i c i a l l y terminated, o r i f both parents a r e dead, and custody of the c h i l d has been l e g a l l y vested i n such agency with authority t o consent t o adoption of the c h i l d ; or, "(5) Any person having l e g a l custody of a c h i l d by court order i f the parental r i g h t s of the parents have been j u d i c i a l l y terminated, but i n such case the court having j u r i s d i c t i o n of the custody of t h e c h i l d must consent t o adoption, and a c e r t i f i e d copy of i t s order s h a l l be attached t o the p e t i t i o n . "The consents required by paragraphs (1) and (2) s h a l l be acknowledged before an o f f i c e r authorized to take acknowledgments, o r witnessed by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the s t a t e department of public welfare o r of an agency o r witnessed by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e court." (Emphasis added. ) P e t i t i o n e r s concede t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t made no f i n d i n g t h a t Mayleen Anderson, t h e surviving parent came w i t h i n any o f t h e exceptions c i t e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . t o t h e adoption. Nor d i d she consent They contend, however, t h a t t h e r e i s testimony t h a t t h e only support received f o r t h e c h i l d came from h i s f a t h e r and from t h e respondents, thus coming under t h e exception of subsection ( l ) ( f ) of s e c t i o n 61-205, R.C.M. 1947. They argue t h a t s e v e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s have decided cases which i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e p a r e n t s ' consent t o adoption i s n o t r e q u i r e d where they have f a i l e d t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e support of t h e c h i l d , during a period of one year before t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n f o r adoption, r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h e r e was a c o u r t o r d e r compelling them t o do so. Adoption of a Minor, 357 Mass. 490, 258 N.E.2d 567; I n r e Adoption of Sargent, 57 Ohio Op.2d 135, 272 N.E.2d 206. While 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 a r e of utmost concern i n both custody and adoption c a s e s we have r e q u i r e d s t r i c t compliance with s e c t i o n 61-205, R O C.M. 1947, because of t h e harshness o f permanently terminating p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . Although t h e r e i s testimony i n t h e record t h a t t h e c h i l d w a s supported during t h e preceeding four year period by t h e f a t h e r and p e t i t i o n e r s , t h e r e i s no evidence t h a t t h e mother - was a b l e and f a i l e d t o give support during t h i s same period. Subsection (1) (f) of s e c t i o n 61-205, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s t h a t i t be proven: "* * * t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t t h a t s a i d f a t h e r o r mother, i f a b l e , has n o t c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support of s a i d c h i l d during a period of one (1) year before t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n f o r adoption (Emphasis added.) ** *.I1 This the p e t i t i o n e r s f a i l e d t o do. Nor did the d i s t r i c t c o u r t make any findings t o support p e t i t i o n e r s argument. Absent a finding bringing the mother within one of the exceptions, consent i s required. For these reasons we affirm the custody award, but vacate t h e adoption order without prejudice. T 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.
