WENZ v SCHWARTZE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14228 I N THE S P E E COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA UR M F F 1979 EMlL m Z , e t al., P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, DIANE S H A F E et al. , C W KZ , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal f m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth Judicia D i s t r i c t , Honorable J o e l G. Fbth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Smith, m s Baillie & Wash, Great F a l l s , Mntana n, Jams R. Walsh argued, Great F a l l s , Mntana For Wspondents: Marra, Wenz, I= and Johnson, Great F a l l s , mntana Joseph Marra argued and Warren Wenz arqued, Great F a l l s , Fbntana Carroll Blend argued, G r e a t F a l l s , mntana Suhitted: May 4, 1979 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . t The ~ i s t r i c C o u r t of Pondera County t e r m i n a t e d the p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f a f a t h e r and m o t h e r , b o t h r e s i d e n t s o f C a l i f o r n i a , and g r a n t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e i r d a u g h t e r t o h e r a u n t and u n c l e , r e s i d e n t s of Montana. The f a t h e r a p p e a l s . The s u b j e c t of t h i s a p p e a l i s a minor c h i l d who was b o r n i n C a l i f o r n i a i n 1969. H e r p a r e n t s s e p a r a t e d some e i g h t e e n months a f t e r h e r b i r t h and o b t a i n e d a f i n a l d i s s o l u t i o n of m a r r i a g e on J a n u a r y 1 3 , 1972. The Los A n g e l e s County S u p e r i o r C o u r t , i n a n u n c o n t e s t e d p r o c e e d i n g , g r a n t e d c u s t o d y t o t h e mother and a l l o w e d r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n t o the father. I t a l s o o r d e r e d the f a t h e r t o pay weekly c h i l d s u p p o r t of $ 2 5 and t o m a i n t a i n m e d i c a l and l i f e i n s u r a n c e policies f o r h i s daughter's benefit. P r i o r t o t h e d i s s o l u t i o n , t h e mother had s e p a r a t e d from t h e f a t h e r and had begun l i v i n g w i t h a n o t h e r man, a l t e r n a t i v e l y known a s B r i d g e s , M a r t i n , o r Leonard. While t h e p a r e n t s ' l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n p r i o r t o t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n had n o t been i d e a l , t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r which t h e mother and c h i l d l i v e d grew s t e a d i l y worse i n t h e company o f B r i d g e s . The m o t h e r , c h i l d , and B r i d g e s l i v e d i n a v a r i e t y of h o u s e s , and f i n a l l y i n a run-down a p a r t m e n t w i t h l i t t l e f u r n i t u r e , l i t t l e f o o d , and much q u e s t i o n a b l e company. A s t i m e went on and c o n d i t i o n s worsened f o r the mother and c h i l d , t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , who l i v e d i n t h e a r e a , became c o n c e r n e d f o r the c h i l d ' s w e l f a r e . She made f r e q u e n t v i s i t s t o t h e m o t h e r ' s a p a r m e n t and of t e n k e p t t h e c h i l d on weekends. I n l a t e 1973 a £ t e r h e r mother and B r i d g e s had moved i n t o a n a p a r t m e n t b u i l d i n g i n eni ice, c a l i f o r n i a , the c h i l d began r e l a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n which c a u s e d h e r grandmother c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n c e r n . She d e s c r i b e d i n p a r t i c u l a r t h a t h e r m o t h e r and B r i d g e s had r e c e i v e d , on o c c a s i o n , hypodermic i n j e c t i o n s from some unknown man, and t h a t s h e was u n a b l e t o awaken h e r mother a f t e r s h e had received those injections. She a l s o t o l d how s h e had been r e p e a t e d l y s u b j e c t e d t o s e x u a l a b u s e by B r i d g e s . The g r a n d - mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c h i l d ' s c o m p l a i n t s of a b u s e w e r e o n g o i n g and c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e c h i l d had v i s i b l e p h y s i c a l i n d i c a t i o n s of abuse. The grandmother s h a r e d this i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h the c h i l d ' s f a t h e r and h i s new w i f e . When q u e s t i o n e d by t h e f a t h e r , the c h i l d f i r s t r e f u s e d t o answer b u t l a t e r g a v e a n a f f i r m a t i v e response. wife. She a l s o r e s p o n d e d p o s i t i v e l y t o the f a t h e r ' s new The f a t h e r n e x t q u e s t i o n e d the c h i l d ' s m o t h e r , who d e n i e d any s u c h a c t i v i t i e s . H i s testimony i n d i c a t e s that he c a n n o t remember w h e t h e r h e e v e r c o n f r o n t e d B r i d g e s w i t h this informat i o n . I n November 1973 t h e f a t h e r s p o k e t o Jerome Kessler, a n a t t o r n e y i n Los A n g e l e s , a b o u t a change o f c u s t o d y . Accord- i n g t o Kessler, t h e f a t h e r s a i d t h a t h i s f o r m e r w i f e "was a h i p p i e who wanted t o g o on w e l f a r e " a n d the f a t h e r " e x p r e s s e d a n i n t e r e s t a t some p o i n t o b t a i n i n g c u s t o d y o f h i s d a u g h t e r . " Kessler t o l d the f a t h e r a t t h a t t i m e t h a t h e d o u b t e d w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r had ample g r o u n d s t o o b t a i n a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the decree. The f a t h e r a g a i n c o n s u l t e d Kessler i n F e b r u a r y 1974, a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o Kessler, t o l d him o f a t l e a s t o n e o f t h e a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t s of abuse. Kessler t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e i n f o r m e d t h e f a t h e r t h a t some form o f p r o o f would be n e c e s s a r y , and t h a t a l a w s u i t t o change c u s t o d y would be d i f f i c u l t t o maintain i n t h e absence of an eyewitness t o t h e m i s t r e a t m e n t of t h e c h i l d . A d e p o s i t i o n by Linn Davis, a p a r a l e g a l i n Kessler's o f f i c e , i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e f a t h e r spoke w i t h h e r on numerous o c c a s i o n s r e g a r d i n g a change of c u s t o d y . However, h e r testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t the f a t h e r ' s reasons f o r d e s i r i n g c u s t o d y remained g e n e r a l u n t i l t h e e a r l y p a r t of 1975. "At f i r s t i t was j u s t a n e x p r e s s i o n of d e s i r e f o r t h e c h i l d . " I n January o r February, according t o Davis, t h e f a t h e r complained t h a t h i s former w i f e was a " h i p p i e , a n i r r e s p o n s i b l e woman who d i d n o t seem t o c a r e a b o u t t h e s u i t a b i l i t y of t h e environment o f t h e c h i l d . " I n F e b r u a r y 1975 t h e f a t h e r c a l l e d t o a s k "'Can I g e t c u s t o d y i f smoking m a r i j u a n a ? ' " [ t h e mother] i s According t o D a v i s , it was March 1975 when t h e f a t h e r f i r s t r e l a t e d a n y t h i n g t o h e r a b o u t any a l l e g e d a b u s e of h i s d a u g h t e r . During t h e summer o f 1974, t h e mother p e r m i t t e d t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother t o t a k e t h e c h i l d t o Oregon t o s t a y a t h e r r a n c h home t h e r e . I n e a r l y J u l y , however, i n r e s p o n s e t o a r e q u e s t from t h e c h i l d ' s m a t e r n a l grandmother i n B i l l i n g s , Montana, t h e c h i l d was p u t on a p l a n e t o B i l l i n g s s o s h e c o u l d spend p a r t o f t h e summer w i t h h e r m o t h e r ' s r e l a t i v e s i n Montana. When s h e a r r i v e d i n B i l l i n g s , t h e m a t e r n a l grandmother n o t i c e d t h a t t h e c h i l d t s h a i r was m a t t e d w i t h blood and pus around one e a r . She had h e a r d e a r l i e r from the o t h e r grandmother t h a t t h e c h i l d had e a r problems, b u t t h a t the mother was u n w i l l i n g t o have t h e c o n d i t i o n t r e a t e d by a p h y s i c i a n . The m a t e r n a l grandmother o b t a i n e d m e d i c a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e c h i l d and by t h e t i m e s h e r e t u r n e d t o Los Angeles i n August t h e c o n d i t i o n , a bad i n f e c t i o n , had c l e a r e d up. The m a t e r n a l grandmother accompanied t h e c h i l d on the r e t u r n t r i p t o Los Angeles and s p e n t a b o u t t h r e e d a y s i n the mother's apartment. During t h a t v i s i t s h e o b s e r v e d the d e p r i v e d c o n d i t i o n s under which h e r d a u g h t e r and granddaughter lived. She a l s o o b s e r v e d t h e f a t h e r i n t h e company of t h e mother and B r i d g e s and n o t i c e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r app e a r e d f r i e n d l y toward B r i d g e s . The c h i l d remained i n t h e m o t h e r ' s c u s t o d y f o r t h e n e x t s e v e r a l months, b u t h e r p a t e r n a l grandmother c o n t i n u e d t o c a r e f o r h e r on weekends. The grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c h i l d a g a i n complained o f a b u s e by B r i d g e s and t h a t s h e k e p t t h e c h i l d a s much a s p o s s i b l e t o keep h e r away from Bridges. I n May 1975 t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother, who had remarr i e d , p r e p a r e d t o move t o Oregon w i t h h e r husband. On May 1 2 , s h o r t l y a f t e r s h e had l e f t t h e c h i l d w i t h h e r mother i n Venice, s h e r e c e i v e d a c a l l from t h e mother who t o l d h e r t o come back and g e t t h e c h i l d " b e f o r e [ B r i d g e s ] k i l l s h e r . " When s h e a r r i v e d back a t t h e m o t h e r ' s a p a r t m e n t , the c h i l d ' s c l o t h i n g w a s a l l i n t h e hallway, and t h e mother t o l d t h e grandmother, " t a k e h e r , s h e c a n ' t l i v e w i t h m e . l i v e w i t h [ B r i d g e s ] and I any more." She c a n ' t I t appeared to t h e grandmother t h a t B r i d g e s had l e a r n e d t h a t t h e c h i l d had t o l d a b o u t h i s a b u s e of h e r . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e mother r e f e r r e d t o her c h i l d a s a l i a r . The grandmother and h e r husband k e p t t h e c h i l d f o r t h e n e x t month a s t h e y p r e p a r e d f o r a n e x t e n d e d t o u r through t h e w e s t e r n s t a t e s and Canada. They a r r i v e d a t t h e r e s i d e n c e of t h e c h i l d ' s a u n t and u n c l e i n Pondera County, Montana, on J u n e 15, 1975, and t h e r e s h a r e d t h e f u l l s t o r y of t h e c h i l d ' s l i f e w i t h h e r mother and B r i d g e s . The c h i l d ' s a u n t t e s t i - f i e d t h a t when s h e and h e r husband h e a r d t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s s t o r y t h e y were h o r r i f i e d and a g r e e d w i t h h e r t h a t t h e c h i l d s h o u l d n o t go back t o h e r mother. The a u n t and u n c l e c o n t a c t e d t h e w i f e ' s c o u s i n , a n a t t o r n e y i n G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, who a g r e e d t o come t o t h e i r ranch t o t a l k t h e s i t u a t i o n over. A t the attorney's r e q u e s t , t h e grandmother p r e p a r e d a l e t t e r d e t a i l i n g a l l s h e knew o f t h e c h i l d ' s s i t u a t i o n , c l o s i n g w i t h a p l e a t h a t someone would h e l p h e r s o n , t h e f a t h e r , g a i n c u s t o d y o f t h e child. The a t t o r n e y t h e n t e l e p h o n e d t h e f a t h e r i n C a l i f o r n i a who t o l d him t h a t h e was t o m e e t w i t h Kessler i n Los A n g e l e s t h e n e x t day. According t o a n a f f i d a v i t p r e p a r e d by t h e a t t o r n e y , he t o l d t h e f a t h e r t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s a u n t and u n c l e w e r e considering f i l i n g f o r custody. On t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y t h e grandmother and h e r husband l e f t f o r Canada, l e a v i n g t h e c h i l d ' s c l o t h i n g , m e d i c a l r e c o r d s , and b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e w i t h h e r a u n t and u n c l e . The grandmother t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d t h e c h i l d would b e r e t u r n e d t o h e r i n Oregon a f t e r s h e g o t home from Canada. T h a t same day t h e Great F a l l s a t t o r n e y t e l e p h o n e d Kessler i n Los A n g e l e s and d i s c u s s e d t h e a u n t and u n c l e ' s d e s i r e t o k e e p t h e c h i l d away from h e r m o t h e r , and t h e i r d o u b t s conc e r n i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s w i l l i n g n e s s o r a b i l i t y t o care f o r t h e child. H e l e a r n e d from Kessler t h a t t h e f a t h e r had n o t y e t f i l e d f o r t h e c h i l d ' s c u s t o d y and s t a t e d t h a t K e s s l e r t o l d him t h a t t h e f a t h e r was n o t a b l e t o make up h i s mind a b o u t whether t o seek custody. The n e x t d a y , J u n e 1 8 , t h e G r e a t F a l l s a t t o r n e y a g a i n c a l l e d K e s s l e r t o i n f o r m him t h a t t h e a u n t and u n c l e had d e c i d e d t o s e e k permanent c u s t o d y and t h a t a c o m p l a i n t would b e f i l e d i n Pondera County on J u n e 2 0 , when t h e c h i l d ' s m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s c o u l d come from B i l l i n g s , Montana, t o s i g n it. H e f u r t h e r i n f o r m e d Kessler t h a t t h e a u n t and u n c l e would have a temporary c u s t o d y and r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r i s s u e d t o them a t t h a t same t i m e . The o r d e r g r a n t i n g t e m - p o r a r y c u s t o d y t o t h e a u n t and u n c l e was s i g n e d on J u n e 1 9 , 1975. On J u n e 1 9 , 1975, t h e f a t h e r , h a v i n g b e e n i n f o r m e d t h a t a n a c t i o n was a b o u t t o b e f i l e d i n Montana, f i l e d a s e p a r a t e a c t i o n i n Los A n g e l e s County t o h a v e c u s t o d y changed t o h i m s e l f , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e mother was u n f i t b e c a u s e s h e had p e r m i t t e d t h e c h i l d t o be abused. H e subsequently obtained a s t i p u l a t i o n from t h e m o t h e r a g r e e i n g t o a change o f c u s t o d y and on J u l y 7 t h e Los A n g e l e s County S u p e r i o r C o u r t granted custody t o t h e f a t h e r . On J u n e 2 4 , 1975, t h e g r a n d m o t h e r , f a t h e r , and a f r i e n d of t h e f a t h e r ' s a p p e a r e d a t t h e a u n t a n d u n c l e ' s r a n c h i n P o n d e r a County a n d t o o k t h e c h i l d away, i n t e n d i n g t o f l y h e r back t o C a l i f o r n i a . however, With t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f t h e s h e r i f f , t h e a u n t and u n c l e r e c o v e r e d t h e c h i l d t h a t same evening. Two y e a r s l a t e r , i n August 1977, t h e P o n d e r a County D i s t r i c t Court, s i t t i n g without a jury, i n Great Falls, h e a r d o r a l and d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y from t h e p a r t i e s named i n t h e a u n t and u n c l e ' s c u s t o d y p e t i t i o n . Both t h e f a t h e r a n d p a t e r n a l grandmother a p p e a r e d and t e s t i f i e d , b u t t h e c h i l d ' s mother d i d n o t a p p e a r . A t t h e recommendation o f a Great F a l l s c l i n i c a l psychologist, the District Court did n o t a s k t h e c h i l d w h e t h e r s h e wanted t o s t a y w i t h h e r a u n t and u n c l e o r r e t u r n t o h e r f a t h e r . H e r interests i n the c a s e w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d , however, by t h e C a s c a d e County a t t o r n e y . Following t h e hearing t h e D i s t r i c t Court r u l e d t h a t t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s had a b u s e d and abandoned t h e i r c h i l d , o r d e r e d t h e termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of both n a t u r a l p a r e n t s a n d awarded f u l l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o h e r a u n t and u n c l e . I t a l s o a p p o i n t e d t h e a u n t and u n c l e g e n e r a l g u a r d i a n s f o r t h e c h i l d f o r t h e d u r a t i o n of h e r minority. The s p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n s upon which t h e c o u r t r e l i e d i n e n t e r i n g i t s o r d e r s w e r e t h a t t h e conduct of t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s c o n s t i t u t e d a b u s e and abandonment o f t h e i r minor c h i l d , and t h a t t h i s c o n d u c t r e n d e r e d them " u n f i t t o have o r r e g a i n " t h e " c a r e , c u s t o d y , and c o n t r o l " o f h e r . Further t h e c o u r t concluded t h a t 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 r e q u i r e d t h a t s h e b e " f r e e from t h e dominion" o f h e r p a r e n t s and p l a c e d i n t h e f u l l and c o m p l e t e c a r e o f h e r a u n t and uncle. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made l e n g t h y and d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r which t h e c h i l d had been r a i s e d during her f i r s t f i v e years. In particular, these f i n d i n g s f o c u s on t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h e f a t h e r d u r i n g t h e t i m e h i s d a u g h t e r l i v e d i n Los A n g e l e s County. These f i n d - i n g s show t h a t t h e f a t h e r had n o t s o u g h t c u s t o d y when h i s m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d d e s p i t e h i s knowledge of h i s w i f e ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h B r i d g e s , o f h i s w i f e ' s and B r i d g e s ' u s e of d r u g s , and o f h i s w i f e ' s a p p a r e n t m e n t a l i l l n e s s . They show t h a t the f a t h e r grossly misrepresented h i s a s s e t s a t t h e t i m e o f t h e d i s s o l u t i o n by d e c l a r i n g t h a t p r o p e r t y which h e owned by i n h e r i t a n c e was w o r t h $1000, when i n f a c t i t had b e e n a p p r a i s e d a t $54,400 t e n y e a r s e a r l i e r ( a n d which h e s o l d f o r $lO8,000 i n 1 9 7 3 ) ; t h a t t h e C a l i f o r n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r t o pay h i s w i f e $ 2 5 p e r week i n c h i l d s u p p o r t , b u t t h a t h e i n f a c t p a i d o n l y $30 f o r t h e s u p p o r t of h i s d a u g h t e r from J u l y 1, 1 9 7 1 t o J a n u a r y 1973, a t which t i m e h e was o r d e r e d t o a p p e a r i n r e s p o n s e t o a c o n t e m p t c i t a t i o n i s s u e d by t h e Los A n g e l e s County s u p e r i o r C o u r t ; t h a t t h e f a t h e r h i r e d c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t him a t t h e contempt h e a r i n g and o b t a i n e d a r e d u c t i o n of h i s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n t o $66 p e r month, commencing December 1, 1973, w h i l e i n t h e meantime h e had s o l d h i s i n h e r i t e d p r o p e r t y , and a f t e r d i s t r i b u t i o n s t o o t h e r h e i r s r e c e i v e d $99,400 i n c a s h on August 30, 1973; t h a t t h e f a t h e r c o n t i n u e d t o neg l e c t h i s reduced s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n and was a g a i n c i t e d f o r contempt and o r d e r e d t o a p p e a r i n F e b r u a r y 1975; t h a t t h e f a t h e r meanwhile purchased a home f o r $38,000 and remodeled i t , and d i d " l i t t l e i n t h e way of s e r i o u s employment" des p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t h e d e c l a r e d h i m s e l f t o b e a m u s i c i a n and photographer; t h a t h i s a c t u a l a n n u a l income, e x c e p t f o r t h e y e a r i n which h e s o l d h i s i n h e r i t e d l a n d , h a s n e v e r exceeded $4,000; t h a t t h e f a t h e r knew a s e a r l y a s F e b r u a r y 1974 t h a t h i s d a u g h t e r had r e p o r t e d t o h e r grandmother t h a t s h e had been s e x u a l l y m o l e s t e d by B r i d g e s , t h a t s h e had o b s e r v e d h e r mother and B r i d g e s b e i n g i n j e c t e d w i t h hypodermic n e e d l e s , t h a t she w a s l i v i n g i n f i l t h y conditions, b u t t h a t d e s p i t e t h i s knowledge he f a i l e d t o e i t h e r pay h i s "minimal" s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n o r t o commence p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e g a i n c u s t o d y ; t h a t i t i s i n c r e d i b l e t h a t t h e f a t h e r would d o u b t h i s daugh- t e r ' s t r u t h f u l n e s s when s h e " d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l " t h e unn a t u r a l s e x u a l a c t s which s h e had been compelled t o e n d u r e ; t h a t t h e f a t h e r f a i l e d t o commence any p r o c e e d i n g s on b e h a l f of h i s d a u g h t e r u n t i l s h e was o u t s i d e of C a l i f o r n i a , and t h e n o n l y a f t e r h e had been informed t h a t t h e a u n t and u n c l e i n t e n d e d t o commence s u c h a n a c t i o n ; t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e showed t h a t t h e f a t h e r had t a l k e d t o two l a w y e r s a b o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of g a i n i n g c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d , b u t t h a t h e had n o t made up h i s mind t o do s o u n t i l informed of t h e Montana a c t i o n ; and f i n a l l y , t h a t when h e d i d a t l a s t commence a n a c t i o n , h e r e l i e d e n t i r e l y upon e v i d e n c e of s e x u a l m o l e s t a t i o n of which h e had known f o r a t l e a s t s i x t e e n months. On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e c o u r t r e l i e d upon t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t and o t h e r s i n f i n d i n g t h a t d u r i n g t h e two y e a r s p r i o r t o t r i a l , t h e c h i l d had l i v e d w i t h h e r a u n t a n d u n c l e and had become w e l l a d j u s t e d t o h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d t h a t h e r c o n d i t i o n had changed from a n e r v o u s , h y p e r a c t i v e and a n x i o u s c h i l d t o a s e c u r e and c o m f o r t a b l e c h i l d . I t found s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t t h e a u n t and u n c l e are f i t and p r o p e r p e r s o n s t o b e awarded c u s t o d y . F i n a l l y t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r had n e v e r had a " v i a b l e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p " w i t h h i s daughter. T h r e e p r i n c i p l e m a t t e r s must b e d e c i d e d on t h i s a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e Montana D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify a n e x t a n t C a l i f o r n i a d e c r e e ? 2. Did t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p p o r t i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d w a s a b u s e d and abandoned by b o t h p a r e n t s ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o name t h e c h i l d ' s a u n t a n d u n c l e g e n e r a l g u a r d i a n s of t h e c h i l d ? The f i r s t i s s u e i s t e c h n i c a l l y complex. It involves t h e e f f e c t of p l a i n t i f f s ' f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e of process on t h e f a t h e r ; t h e e f f e c t of t h e f a t h e r ' s appearex a n c e i n t h e Montana p r o c e e d i n g ; t h e e f f e c t o f t h e - p a r t e p r o c e e d i n g by which t h e f a t h e r o b t a i n e d a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f custody i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a Superior Court; t h e e f f e c t of M o n t a n a ' s e n a c t m e n t o f t h e Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t d u r i n g t h e pendency o f t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s ; and f i n a l l y , t h e e f f e c t o f t h e f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t c l a u s e o f t h e United S t a t e s Constitution. W e hold t h a t the ~ i s t r i c t C o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify t h e ~ a l i f o r n i a e c r e e . d P e r s o n a l J u r i s d i c t i o n -- F a t h e r . Over t h e The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , o n J u l y 1, 1975, o b t a i n e d p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e mother and B r i d g e s by p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e of process i n California. E f f o r t s by t h e Los A n g e l e s County s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t t o s e r v e p r o c e s s on t h e f a t h e r w e r e unsuccessful. Thus, t h e f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t h e was n o t subject t o the D i s t r i c t Court's jurisdiction. H e contends f u r t h e r t h a t h i s a p p e a r a n c e a t t h e h e a r i n g on p l a i n t i f f s ' p e t i t i o n d i d n o t s e r v e t o c o n f e r t h e c o u r t w i t h - personam in j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r him. M o n t a n a ' s R u l e 4 B ( 2 ) , M.R.Civ.P., which h a s no c o u n t e r - p a r t i n t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s of c i v i l procedure provides t h a t a in c o u r t o b t a i n s - personam j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a p e r s o n when t h a t person v o l u n t a r i l y appears: " J u r i s d i c t i o n may b e a c q u i r e d by o u r c o u r t s o v e r any person through s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s a s h e r e i n provided; o r & t h e voluntary appearance - i n an person e i t h e r personally, o r action t h r o u g h a n a t t o r n e y , o r t h r o u g h a n y o t h e r aut h o r i z e d o f f i c e r , a g e n t o r employee." (Emphasis added. ) any A d d i t i o n a l l y , c o u r t s and commentators a r e q u i t e w i l l i n g t o d i s t i n g u i s h c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e s i n which c o u r t s a c t a s a r b i t e r s between d i s p u t i n g p a r e n t s from d e p e n d e n t and n e g l e c t a n d a b u s e cases when t h e c o u r t s t a n d s a s p a r e n s p a t r i a e s e e k i n g t o a s s i s t t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e a b u s e d , abandoned, o r neglected child. a t 610-11 H. C l a r k , - -f Domestic R e l a t i o n s , 818.2 Law o ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; Hazard, May v . Anderson: Preamble t o Family Law Chaos, 45 Va.L.Rev. 379, 398, 404 ( 1 9 5 9 ) ; C u r r i e , J u s t i c e T r a y n o r and t h e C o n f l i c t o f Laws, 1 3 Stan.L.Rev. 719, 7 6 8 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . A s d e c l a r e d by t h e A r i z o n a C o u r t o f A p p e a l s i n a r e c e n t termination of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s decision: ". . .when t h e i s s u e i s p r i m a r i l y between t h e s t a t e i n i t s p a r e n s p a t r i a e c a p a c i t y a n d a n abs e n t non-consenting spouse, t h e s t a t e i s j u s t i - f i e d i n providing f o r e f f e c t i v e termination p r o c e e d i n g s , e v e n i n t h e a b s e n c e of i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a n o n - c o n s e n t i n g gent." I n R e Appeal i n Maricopa County, J u v e n i l e A c t i o n No. JS-734 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 25 A r i z . App. 333, 543 P.2d 454, 459. I n l i g h t o f t h e w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y , w e must a g r e e t h a t personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over a parent i s n o t necessary t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o a minor c h i l d , s o l o n g a s t h e p a r e n t has a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e termination proc e e d i n g s o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , u n d e r R u l e 4 D , M.R.Civ.P., makes a n e f f o r t r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e t o t h e parent. S e e , Commissioners' Note, Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t , S e c t i o n 1 3 , 9 Uniform Laws Annot. 1 2 1 (1973) ( " P e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e f a t h e r i s n o t required .. . The A c t e m p h a s i z e s t h e need f o r t h e p e r s o n a l a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e c o n t e s t a n t s r a t h e r t h a n any t e c h n i c a l requirement f o r personal j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ) ; ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 380 U.S. L.Ed.2d 545, 549-50, 62, 65-66; S69 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . 85 S.Ct. Armstrong v . Manzo 1 1 8 7 , 1190-91, 14 R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f C o n f l i c t o f Laws I n t h e c a s e of o u t - o f - s t a t e p a r e n t s , see Sec- t i o n 5 o f t h e Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t , sect i o n 40-7-106 MCA. S u b j e c t Matter J u r i s d i c t i o n . The f a t h e r ' s s e c o n d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t u n d e r t h e Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t ( U C C J A ) , s e c t i o n s 61-401 t o -425, t o -125 MCA, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 40-7-101 t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t , r a t h e r t h a n t h e Montana c o u r t , had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c u s t o d y o f h i s child. To c o n s i d e r t h i s argument, i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o ex- amine t h e e f f e c t of t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e UCCJA f o l l o w i n g t h e commencement o f t h e a u n t and u n c l e ' s a c t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 61-111, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 40-6-233 MCA, t o terminate t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . T h i s a c t i o n was commenced on J u n e 1 9 , 1975, more t h a n two y e a r s b e f o r e t h e J u l y 1, 1977, e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e The f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e A c t m u s t c o n t r o l t h e UCCJA. District Court' s j u r i s d i c t i o n d e s p i t e i t s l a t e r enactment, w h i l e t h e a u n t and u n c l e c i t i n g s e c t i o n 12-201, R.C.M. now s e c t i o n 1-2-109 1947, argue t h a t t h e A c t cannot be r e t r o - MCA, a c t i v e l y a p p l i e d b e c a u s e i t i s s u b s t a n t i v e a n d d o e s n o t , by i t s e x p r e s s terms, a p p l y t o a c t i o n s which had a l r e a d y b e e n commenced. A n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l s i t u a t i o n was r e c e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d i n a N e w York UCCJA case, P i t r o w s k i v . P i t r o w s k i ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 412 N.Y.S.2d 316. The c o u r t d e s c r i b e d t h e c h a n g e s s e t f o r t h i n i t s newly a d o p t e d UCCJA a s p r o c e d u r a l a n d acknowledged t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t such s t a t u t e s a r e t o r e c e i v e r e t r o a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n t o a c t i o n s commenced p r i o r t o t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e s t a t u t e . I t r e a s o n e d , however, t h a t " d i f f e r e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s arise" i f t h e q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e proc e d u r a l c h a n g e s embodied i n t h e s t a t u t e a r e t o b e a p p l i e d t o a c t i o n s previously taken i n t h e pending proceeding. The c o u r t h e l d t h a t i n t h e absence of a c l e a r l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , t h e pre-UCCJA j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s would a p p l y t o the court's preeffective date jurisdictional rulings: " ' I n o t h e r words, w h i l e p r o c e d u r a l c h a n g e s a r e , i n t h e a b s e n c e o f words o f e x c l u s i o n , deemed a p p l i c a b l e t o " s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e d i n g s i n pendi n q a c t i o n s " [ c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ] , it t a k e s a "clear expression of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e purpose t o j u s t i f y " a r e t r o s p e c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of e v e n a p r o c e d u r a l s t a t u t e s o a s t o a f f e c t proceedings previously taken i n such a c t i o n s . [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] ' " 412 N.Y.S. 2d a t 320, ( q u o t i n g Simonson v I n t e r n a t i o n a l Bank (1964) , 1 4 N.Y.2d 281, 289-90, 200 N.E.2d 427, 432, 241 N.Y.S.2d 433, 440.) (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) - - . .. . Applying t h i s p r i n c i p l e t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r u l i n g s which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d p r i o r t o J u l y 1, 1977, a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e UCCJA. The r e q u i r e - ments o f t h e A c t , however, a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o s u b s e q u e n t jurisdictional determinations including t h e District Court's u l t i m a t e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify t h e C a l i f o r n i a custody decree. While t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was n o t , a s o f t h e commencement o f t h i s p r o c e e d i n g , bound by t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i r e ments of t h e UCCJA, it i s n o n e t h e l e s s prudent t o i n q u i r e w h e t h e r t h e f a c t s which e x i s t e d o n J u n e 1 9 , 1975, would h a v e permitted t h e District Court t o take j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c a s e had t h e A c t been e f f e c t i v e on t h a t d a t e . If the facts a s of t h a t d a t e would n o t h a v e j u s t i f i e d t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e c o u r t ' s ultimate custody order i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c o g n i t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t by o t h e r UCCJA s t a t e s under S e c t i o n 1 3 of t h e A c t , s e c t i o n 40-7-114 MCA. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , f a c t s meeting t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s o f t h e A c t d i d e x i s t on t h e d a t e t h e a c t i o n was f i l e d . The UCCJA a t t e m p t s t o a v o i d p r o t r a c t e d i n t e r s t a t e c h i l d c u s t o d y l i t i g a t i o n by r e d u c i n g c o m p e t i t i o n among c o u r t s which m i g h t o t h e r w i s e i s s u e c o n f l i c t i n g c u s t o d y o r d e r s : "The A c t i s d e s i g n e d t o b r i n g some semblance o f I t l i m i t s custody o r d e r i n t o t h e e x i s t i n g chaos. j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t h e s t a t e where t h e c h i l d h a s h i s home o r where t h e r e a r e o t h e r s t r o n g c o n t a c t s w i t h I t prot h e c h i l d and h i s f a m i l y . S e e S e c t i o n 3. v i d e s f o r t h e r e c o g n i t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t o f o u t o f - s t a t e c u s t o d y d e c r e e s i n many i n s t a n c e s . See S e c t i o n s 1 3 and 1 5 . J u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify d e crees o f o t h e r s t a t e s i s l i m i t e d by g i v i n g a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e t o t h e p r i o r c o u r t under c e r t a i n conditions. See S e c t i o n 14. A c c e s s t o a c o u r t may b e d e n i e d t o p e t i t i o n e r s who have engaged i n c h i l d s n a t c h i n g o r s i m i l a r p r a c t i c e s . S e e S e c t i o n 8. A l s o , t h e A c t o p e n s up d i r e c t l i n e s o f communication between c o u r t s o f d i f f e r e n t s t a t e s t o p r e v e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o n f l i c t and bring about i n t e r s t a t e judicial assistance i n custody cases." Commissioners' P r e f a t o r y Note, Uniform C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t , 9 U.L.A. 1 0 1 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . S e e a l s o , Bodenheimer, P r o g r e s s Under t h e Unif o m C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t and Remaining Problems: P u n i t i v e Decrees, J o i n t Custody, and E x c e s s i v e M o d i f i c a t i o n s , 65 Cal.L.Rev. 978, 982-83 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The A c t e s t a b l i s h e s a t w o - t i e r e d jurisdictional test which a c o u r t must f i n d s a t i s f i e d b e f o r e i t makes even a n i n i t i a l c u s t o d y d e c r e e , and a f u r t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t e s t which l i m i t s a c o u r t ' s power t o modify a n o u t - o f - s t a t e decree. I t is t h e two-tier S e e , Note, 60 Minn.L.Rev. t e s t t h a t must f i r s t b e examined. 820, 827-30 (1976). The g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e UCCJA a r e found i n s e c t i o n 40-7-104 s e c t i o n 40-4-211 MCA. MCA, i n c o r p o r a t i n g by r e f e r e n c e This s e c t i o n d e t a i l s four s e p a r a t e b a s e s of j u r i s d i c t i o n . The f i r s t i s i f t h i s s t a t e i s t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e o r h a s been t h e home s t a t e w i t h i n t h e s i x months p r i o r t o t h e commencement of t h e c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g . S e c t i o n 40-4-211 (1)( a ) MCA. "Home s t a t e " i s d e f i n e d a s t h e s t a t e i n which t h e c h i l d h a s l i v e d w i t h a p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s o r someone a c t i n g i n t h e c a p a c i t y o f a p a r e n t f o r a t l e a s t s i x months. S e c t i o n 40-7-103(5) MCA. Second, a c o u r t may h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n i f i t i s 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 d o s o b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d and one o r b o t h o f h i s parents ( o r c o n t e s t a n t s ) has a s i g n i f i c a n t connection with t h i s s t a t e and b e c a u s e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e c h i l d ' s c a r e , p r o t e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , and p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n ships i s a v a i l a b l e here. S e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 1 1 ( 1 ) ( b ) MCA. T h i r d , i f t h e c h i l d i s p r e s e n t i n t h i s s t a t e and h a s been abandoned o r r e q u i r e s emergency p r o t e c t i o n b e c a u s e h e h a s been t h r e a t e n e d w i t h m i s t r e a t m e n t o r a b u s e o r i s n e g l e c t e d o r dependent, t h e c o u r t may t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e o r d i n a r y p a r e n s p a t r i a e power. S e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 1 1 ( 1 ) ( c ) MCA. F o u r t h , a c o u r t i s empowered t o t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n i f no o t h e r s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h e f i r s t t h r e e g r o u n d s o r a n o t h e r s t a t e h a s r e f u s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n and i f i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d t h a t t h e c o u r t do s o . Sec- t i o n 40-4-211(1) ( d ) MCA. The f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c h i l d had been l e f t i n Montana b e c a u s e i n May and J u n e o f 1975 s h e w a s n o t wanted by e i t h e r o f h e r p a r e n t s . H e r m o t h e r had e x p l i c i t l y r e j e c t e d h e r and h e r f a t h e r , though p r o f e s s i n g a d e s i r e f o r h e r p r e s e n c e and company, had p e r m i t t e d h e r t o b e l e f t w i t h h i s f o r m e r w i f e ' s r e l a t i v e s more t h a n 1000 m i l e s away. He had t a k e n no a c t i o n t o g a i n h i s d a u g h t e r ' s c u s t o d y e v e n a f t e r h i s f o r m e r w i f e had made i t c l e a r t h a t t h e c h i l d c o u l d n o t l i v e w i t h h e r and was i n p h y s i c a l d a n g e r from h e r boyfriend. S e c t i o n 40-4-211 (1)( c ) MCA p r o v i d e s : "A c o u r t of t h i s s t a t e competent t o d e c i d e c h i l d c u s t o d y m a t t e r s h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n by i n i t i a l o r m o d i f i c a t i o n decree i f : " ( c ) the child i s physically present i n t h i s s t a t e and: " ( i )h a s been abandoned; o r " ( i i ) i t i s n e c e s s a r y i n a n emergency t o p r o t e c t him b e c a u s e h e h a s been s u b j e c t e d t o o r threatened with mistreatment o r abuse o r i s neglected o r dependent." The Commissioners' Note t o t h i s s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s i t a s a r e t e n t i o n and r e a f f i r m a t i o n of p a r e n s p a t r i a e j u r i s d i c t i o n b u t c a u t i o n s t h a t it i s t o b e used o n l y i n " e x t r a o r d i n a r y circumstances." 9 Uniform L a w s A n n o t a t e d 108 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . a l s o , I r e n e R. v . I n e z H. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 4 1 0 N.Y.S.2d Bodenheimer, s u p r a , 65 Cal.L.Rev. a t 992-951; See 53, 55; F o s t e r and F r e e d , C h i l d S n a t c h i n g and C u s t o d i a l F i g h t s : The C a s e f o r t h e u n i f o r m C h i l d Custody J u r i s d i c t i o n A c t , 1 0 1 1 , 1020-21 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . 28 H a s t i n g s L.J. I n view of t h e circumstances a t t e n d - i n g t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n c e i n Montana i n J u n e 1975, w e conclude t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court w a s j u s t i f i e d i n accepting jurisdiction. The f a c t s a t t h a t t i m e m e t t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s o f s e c t i o n 40-4-211(1) ( c ) MCA, b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d w a s p r e s e n t i n Montana, had been abandoned by b o t h o f h e r n a t u r a l p a r e n t s and had been s u b j e c t e d t o and t h r e a t e n e d w i t h f u r t h e r m i s t r e a t m e n t and a b u s e . The s e c o n d t i e r of t h e i n i t i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l t e s t i s f o u n d i n s e c t i o n 40-7-108 MCA, a complex s e c t i o n d e s c r i b i n g i n c o n v e n i e n t forum c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . This s e c t i o n authorizes a D i s t r i c t Court t o "decline t o e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n " any t i m e b e f o r e e n t r y of a d e c r e e i f i t f i n d s t h a t it i s a n " i n c o n v e n i e n t forum" a n d t h a t a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e i s a "more a p p r o p r i a t e forum." The s e c t i o n d e s c r i b e s s e v e r a l c r i t e r i a by which a D i s t r i c t C o u r t may c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r i t i s a n i n c o n v e n i e n t forum, b u t d o e s n o t c r e a t e a mandatory d u t y on t h e c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e a c t i o n upon s u c h g r o u n d s . The s e c t i o n i s e n t i r e l y d i s c r e t i o n a r y . Thus, w h i l e t h e f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e Montana c o u r t w a s a n i n c o n v e n i e n t forum u n d e r t h e c r i t e r i a o f S e c t i o n 7 ( c ) , s e c t i o n 40-71 0 8 ( 3 ) MCA, the a c t specifically leaves t h e inconvenient forum d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i t h i n t h e f u l l d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l court. W e f i n d no a b u s e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n . to J u r i s d i c t i o n - Modify t h e C a l i f o r n i a Decree. A s e c o n d l i m i t a t i o n on t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c - t i o n a r i s e s when a d e c r e e o f a n o t h e r s t a t e i s a l r e a d y i n force. I n t h e present case, t h e C a l i f o r n i a Superior Court had f i r s t g r a n t e d c u s t o d y t o t h e c h i l d ' s m o t h e r . Then, by a m o d i f i c a t i o n d e c r e e d a t e d J u l y 7, 1975, g r a n t e d custody t o the father. The f a t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e UCCJA and t h e f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t c l a u s e p r o h i b i t a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e by t h e Montana c o u r t . The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s n o t r u l e d e x p l i c i t l y w h e t h e r t h e f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t c l a u s e a p p l i e s t o custody decrees. P a s t d e c i s i o n s of t h i s C o u r t , however, h a v e t r e a t e d t h e c l a u s e as a l i m i t a t i o n on a Montana c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n s made by o t h e r C a r r o l l v. White ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 332, 443 P.2d states. 13. While t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y held whether t h e c l a u s e i s a p p l i e d i n - custody any c a s e s , it has r e f u s e d t o apply it t o p a r t i c u l a r c a s e s i n which t h e p r o c e d u r e i n a s t a t e c o u r t was n o t c o n s i d e r e d adequate. 371 U.S. Of p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e i s F o r d v . F o r d (1962) , 1 8 7 , 83 S . C t . 273, 9 L.Ed.2d 240. I n Ford a ~ i r - g i n i a c o u r t awarded c u s t o d y o f c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r m o t h e r . Some months l a t e r t h e f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e same c o u r t f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e c r e e , b u t b e f o r e t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d judgment on h i s p e t i t i o n , t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t o a m o d i f i c a t i o n and s o n o t i f i e d t h e c o u r t , which d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i tion. S u b s e q u e n t l y , t h e mother moved t o S o u t h ~ a r o l i n a and p e t i t i o n e d a c o u r t of t h a t s t a t e t o r e g a i n custody of t h e p a r t i e s ' children. The f a t h e r d e f e n d e d h i s c u s t o d y on t h e b a s i s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t and t h e V i r g i n i a c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l i n response t o t h a t agreement. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e S o u t h C a r o l i n a c o u r t s w e r e n o t bound by t h e dismissal of t h e V i r g i n i a p e t i t i o n f o r modification. ruling, I n so t h e C o u r t c i t e d s e v e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which a r e r e l e v a n t here: "The V i r g i n i a c o u r t h e l d no h e a r i n g s a s t o t h e custody of t h e children. I n entering its order o f d i s m i s s a l , t h e c o u r t n e i t h e r examined t h e t e r m s o f t h e p a r e n t s ' agreement n o r e x e r c i s e d i t s own judgment of what was b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . The c o u r t ' s o r d e r meant no more t h a n t h a t t h e p a r e n t s had made a n agreement between themselves. .. ". . . w e do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t , i n view of V i r g i n i a ' s s t r o n g p o l i c y of s a f e g u a r d i n g t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d , a c o u r t of t h a t S t a t e would c o n s i d e r i t s e l f bound by a mere o r d e r o f d i s m i s s a l where, a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l judge n e v e r even s a w , much less p a s s e d upon, t h e p a r e n t s ' p r i v a t e agreement f o r c u s t o d y and h e a r d no t e s t i m o n y whatever upon which t o b a s e a judgment a s t o what would be b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . " 371 U.S. a t 193-94, 9 L.Ed.2d a t 244-45, 8 3 S . C t . a t 276-77. These same c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . While t h e Los Angeles County S u p e r i o r C o u r t a t l e a s t a p p e a r s t o have viewed t h e s u b s t a n c e of t h e s t i p u l a t i o n between t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s , i t i s a m a t t e r o f r e c o r d t h a t no h e a r i n g was h e l d , t h e c o u r t h e a r d no t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g what would b e b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d , and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d n o t have e x e r c i s e d i t s own judgment of what was " b e s t " f o r t h e c h i l d . Thus, b e c a u s e t h e s e w e r e p r e c i s e l y t h e i s s u e s which t h e Montana c o u r t h e a r d and d e c i d e d , i t i s no more bound t o follow t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t ' s decree than w a s t h e South C a r o l i n a c o u r t bound t o f o l l o w t h e V i r g i n i a o r d e r i n Ford. S i m i l a r l y , w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Montana c o u r t was n o t p r e v e n t e d from modifying t h e C a l i f o r n i a d e c r e e by t h e UCCJA. A c e n t r a l p u r p o s e of t h e Act i s t o r e d u c e i n t e r s t a t e compe- t i t i o n for a c h i l d ' s c u s t o d y by r e q u i r i n g r e c o g n i t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t of one s t a t e ' s d e c r e e s by t h e c o u r t s of o t h e r states. However, b e f o r e t h e r e c o g n i t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A c t can be a p p l i e d , t h e i n i t i a l d e c r e e must b e e n t e r e d i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h s t r i c t n o t i c e r e q u i r e ments. S e c t i o n 1 3 o f t h e UCCJA, s e c t i o n 40-7-114 MCA, p r o v i d e s f o r t h e r e c o g n i t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t o f o u t - o f - s t a t e custody decrees: "The c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e s h a l l r e c o g n i z e and enf o r c e a n i n i t i a l o r modification decree of a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e which had assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n under s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s c h a p t e r o r which was made under f a c t u a l circumstances meeting t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s of t h e c h a p t e r , s o long as t h i s d e c r e e h a s n o t been m o d i f i e d i n a c c o r d a n c e with jurisdictional standards substantially s i m i l a r t o t h o s e of t h i s c h a p t e r . " S e c t i o n 1 4 o f t h e A c t , s e c t i o n 40-7-115 MCA, limits a D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify t h e d e c r e e s o f another state: "(1) I f a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r s t a t e h a s made a c u s t o d y d e c r e e , a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may n o t modify t h a t d e c r e e u n l e s s i t a p p e a r s t o t h e c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e c o u r t which r e n d e r e d t h e d e c r e e d o e s n o t now h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n under j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n accordance with t h i s chapter o r has declined t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify t h e d e c r e e and t h e c o u r t of t h i s s t a t e has j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ( 2 ) I f a c o u r t of t h i s s t a t e i s a u t h o r i z e d under s u b s e c t i o n (1) and 40-7-109 t o modify a c u s t o d y d e c r e e o f a n o t h e r s t a t e , i t s h a l l g i v e d u e cons i d e r a t i o n t o t h e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e r e c o r d and o t h e r documents o f a l l p r e v i o u s p r o c e e d i n g s subm i t t e d t o i t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h 40-7-123." The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s t o t h e p r e s e n t m a t t e r a r i s e s from t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e C a l i f o r n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t t o comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n s 4 and 5 o f t h e A c t , s e c t i o n s 40-7-105 MCA. S e e Cal.Civ.Code s e c t i o n s 5153, 5154. and -106 S e c t i o n 40-7- 1 0 5 MCA p r o v i d e s f o r n o t i c e t o , among o t h e r s , "any p e r s o n who h a s p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d " : " B e f o r e making a d e c r e e u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r , r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e and o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e heard s h a l l b e g i v e n t o t h e c o n t e s t a n t s , a n y p a r e n t whose p a r e n t a l r i g h t s have n o t been p r e v i o u s l y t e r m i - has n a t e d , and a n y p e r s o n who - p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of t h - -e c h i l d . I f a n y o f t h e s e p e r s o n s a r e o u t s i d e t h i s s t a t e , n o t i c e and o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e h e a r d s h a l l b e g i v e n p u r s u a n t t o 40-7-106." (Emphasis added. ) S e c t i o n 40-7-106 MCA c o n t a i n s n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s when a p e r s o n t o whom n o t i c e a n d o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e h e a r d m u s t b e given i s i n another s t a t e . I t r e q u i r e s such n o t i c e " a t l e a s t 10 days b e f o r e any hearing i n t h i s s t a t e . " " S t r i c t compliance" w i t h t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s i s e s s e n t i a l t o t h e v a l i d i t y of a d e c r e e : " S t r i c t c o m p l i a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n s 4 and 5 i s e s s e n t i a l f o r t h e v a l i d t y of a custody decree w i t h i n t h e s t a t e a n d i t s r e c o g n i t i o n and enforcement i n o t h e r s t a t e s under s e c t i o n s 1 2 , 1 3 and 1 5 . " Note, 9 Uniform Laws A n n o t a t e d 110 (1973). Y e t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , no n o t i c e o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e h e a r d w a s e v e r g i v e n t o t h e a u n t and u n c l e who had p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d on J u n e 1 9 , 1975, when t h e f a t h e r ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e Los A n g e l e s County Superior Court. The f a t h e r a c t e d q u i c k l y t o o b t a i n a modi- f i e d order--only s e v e n t e e n d a y s a f t e r h i s p e t i t i o n was filed. T h e r e was no c o m p l i a n c e w i t h S e c t i o n s 4 and 5. Thus, t h e r e c a n b e no r e q u i r e m e n t o f r e c o g n i t i o n and e n f o r c e ment u n d e r S e c t i o n 13. A more d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n a r i s e s u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 4 , which r e q u i r e s d e f e r e n c e t o t h e c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t which f i r s t g r a n t e d a c u s t o d y d e c r e e . The c e n t r a l i d e a o f t h a t s e c t i o n i s t h a t o n c e a s t a t e c o u r t h a s made a custody decree, t h a t s t a t e r e t a i n s an almost exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify t h e d e c r e e u n l e s s i t (1) no l o n g e r has j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s " s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n accorda n c e " w i t h t h e A c t ; o r ( 2 ) h a s d e c l i n e d t o assume j u r i s d i c the t i o n t o m o d i f y / d e c r e e ; and ( 3 ) t h e c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e h a s jurisdiction. ( S e e , Commissioners' Note t o S e c t i o n 1 4 . ) I n t h i s case t h e i n i t i a l custody decree granted t h e c h i l d t o h e r mother. A t t h a t p o i n t C a l i f o r n i a became t h e " p r i o r s t a t e " and p e t i t i o n s f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n w e r e t o b e addressed t o i t s courts, a s w a s t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n . The f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n , however, d i d n o t g i v e t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o modify t h e c h i l d ' s c u s t o d y b e c a u s e o f t h e f a i l u r e t o n o t i f y t h e p e r s o n s who had p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of her. The f a t h e r had a d u t y t o n o t i f y t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t t h a t persons n o t p a r t y t o h i s a c t i o n f o r modification had p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d , S e c t i o n 9 ( a ) ( 3 ) UCCJA, C a l .Civ.Code s e c t i o n 5158 (1)( c ), and t h a t c o u r t w a s r e q u i r e d t o o r d e r t h o s e p e r s o n s t o b e j o i n e d a s p a r t i e s and t o n o t i f y them of t h e pending a c t i o n . S e c t i o n 1 0 UCCJA, Cal.Civ.Code s e c t i o n 5159. The f a t h e r h a s m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s a c t i o n t h a t t h e p r o p e r forum i n which t o h e a r t h e a u n t and u n c l e ' s p e t i t i o n i s t h e Los A n g e l e s County S u p e r i o r C o u r t , y e t h e n e g l e c t e d t h e mandatory p r o c e d u r e s by which t h e a u n t and u n c l e would have been made p a r t i e s t o t h e C a l i f o r n i a a c t i o n which h e commenced i n 1975. Now h e a r g u e s t h a t t h e m a t t e r must b e h e a r d o n c e a g a i n i n C a l i f o r n i a . t h a t t h e UCCJA r e q u i r e s s u c h a r e s u l t . W e do n o t b e l i e v e Ordinarily i f a s t a t e which h a s e n t e r e d a d e c r e e s t i l l h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 3 of t h e A c t , s e c t i o n 40-4-211 MCA, its courts must b e l o o k e d t o ahead o f t h e c o u r t s o f a n o t h e r s t a t e which subsequently g a i n s j u r i s d i c t i o n . Thus, w e must i n q u i r e w h e t h e r C a l i f o r n i a s t i l l h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 3. P l a i n l y i t d o e s n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) b e c a u s e C a l i f o r n i a i s no l o n g e r t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e . Nor d o e s i t have j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r S e c t i o n 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d i s n o t p r e s e n t i n C a l i f o r n i a , o r under Section 3 ( a ) ( 4 ) b e c a u s e t h e Montana c o u r t h a s assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r f a c t s which meet S e c t i o n 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) . The o n l y r e m a i n i n g s e c t i o n i s 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) , s e c t i o n 40-4-211 (1)( b ) MCA: "A c o u r t of t h i s s t a t e competent t o d e c i d e c h i l d c u s t o d y m a t t e r s h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n by i n i t i a l o r m o d i f i c a t i o n decree i f : " ( b ) i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d t h a t a c o u r t of t h i s s t a t e assume j u r i s d i c t i o n because: " ( i ) t h e c h i l d and h i s p a r e n t s o r t h e c h i l d and a t l e a s t one c o n t e s t a n t have a s i g n i f i c a n t conn e c t i o n w i t h t h i s s t a t e ; and " ( i i ) there i s available i n t h i s state substantial evidence concerning t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t o r f u t u r e c a r e , p r o t e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , and p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n ships. " The Oregon Supreme C o u r t r e c e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d whether t h e c o u r t s of I n d i a n a w e r e t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e forum f o r r e s o l u t i o n of a c u s t o d y d i s p u t e under t h i s s e c t i o n i n a c a s e i n which I n d i a n a had e n t e r e d t h e f i r s t d e c r e e . The mother had s e c r e t e d two c h i l d r e n a g e s 4 and 8 away from t h e i r f a t h e r who was s t i l l i n I n d i a n a . Some months a f t e r t h e y had l e f t I n d i a n a , s h e p e t i t i o n e d a n Oregon c o u r t f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e I n d i a n a d e c r e e . I t w a s not u n t i l the children had been away from I n d i a n a f o r e i g h t e e n months t h a t t h e Oregon c o u r t h e a r d t h e case. The Supreme C o u r t o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e p a s s a g e o f t i m e had e l i m i n a t e d any " s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n " w i t h I n d i a n a t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had once had: ". . . a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h e c h i l d r e n had no s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n w i t h I n d i a n a b e c a u s e of t h e l e n g t h of t i m e t h e y had been away. I n t h e l i v e s of c h i l d r e n 4 and 8 y e a r s of a g e , 18 months i s a l o n g t i m e . " Marr i a g e of S e t t l e ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 276 O r . 759, 556 P.2d 962, 966. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e p a s s a g e of t i m e h a s c r e a t e d a n i d e n t i c a l l o s s of " s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n " between t h e c h i l d and C a l i f o r n i a . She was f i v e y e a r s of a g e when s h e was l e f t w i t h h e r Montana r e l a t i v e s . Two y e a r s had p a s s e d by t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g , and n e a r l y two more have s i n c e e l a p s e d . A s t h e Oregon Supreme C o u r t n o t e d , j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r Sec- t i o n 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) e x i s t s o n l y when i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d b e c a u s e t h e c h i l d and i t s p a r e n t s h a v e a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a s t a t e and t h e r e i s "optimum a c c e s s t o r e l e v a n t evidence." S e t t l e , 556 P.2d a t 966. See a l s o , Commissioners' Note, 9 Uniform Laws A n n o t a t e d 107-08 I n t h i s case t h e r e i s n e i t h e r . (1973). C a l i f o r n i a d o e s n o t now h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r t h e A c t and d i d n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e h e a r i n g i n August 1977. Thus, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s f r e e t o e n t e r a new c u s t o d y o r d e r . The second p r i n c i p l e i s s u e r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e f a t h e r and mother. T h e r e i s more t h a n s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l , c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s and judgment o f t h e D i s - trict Court i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e n a t u r a l parents. The c o n c e r n h a s been advanced t h a t t h e f a t h e r was n o t e q u a l l y c u l p a b l e . I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t h e had m i s r e p r e s e n t e d h i s a s s e t s t o t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t and t h e r e b y r e d u c e d h i s p o t e n t i a l s u p p o r t obligation. It i s a m a t t e r of r e c o r d t h a t t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t was f o r c e d t o t h r e a t e n t h e f a t h e r w i t h a c o n t e m p t c i t a t i o n t o i n d u c e him t o p r o v i d e f o r h i s c h i l d . These matters i n t h e m s e l v e s h a v e n o t been t h o u g h t t o j u s t i f y a t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . - Mont . 07. , See Matter of J.L.B. 594 P.2d 1127, 1135, 36 St.Rep. (1979), 896, 906- Nor may t h e a b u s e o r n e g l e c t which t h e mother and h e r b o y f r i e n d may have shown b e a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e f a t h e r . Matter of T.E.R. (19791, 1121, 36 St.Rep. Mont. , 590 P.2d 1 1 1 7 , 276, 281. W e f i n d , however, two c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o b e p a r t i c u l a r l y s u p p o r t i v e of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t t h e f a t h e r had n e g l e c t e d h i s minor c h i l d . First, the father f a i l e d t o n o t i f y t h e juvenile a u t h o r i t i e s concerning t h e p l i g h t of h i s d a u g h t e r . According t o t h e f a t h e r ' s m o t h e r , t h e c h i l d r e p e a t e d l y complained of a b u s e by h e r m o t h e r ' s b o y f r i e n d o v e r a p e r i o d of a t l e a s t one and one-half One of t h e a t t o r n e y s c o n s u l t e d by t h e f a t h e r , M r . years. Gewirtz, a d v i s e d him t o n o t i f y t h e j u v e n i l e a u t h o r i t i e s , b u t t h e f a t h e r did not. Second, i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n May 1975, when t h e mother f o r c e d t h e c h i l d o u t of h e r a p a r t m e n t , t h e c h i l d ' s p a t e r n a l grandmother, n o t h e r f a t h e r , t o o k c a r e of h e r . The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s grandmother took t h e g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t i n h e r w h i l e s h e was l i v i n g w i t h h e r mother. The grandmother, n o t t h e f a t h e r , k e p t h e r a t h e r home o v e r many weekends. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t t h e grandmother was t h e p r i n c i p l e f o r c e behind t h e f a t h e r ' s " b e l a t e d a t t e m p t s " t o o b t a i n c u s t o d y of h i s d a u g h t e r . It a l s o found t h a t no " v i a b l e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p " h a s e v e r e x i s t e d between t h e f a t h e r and c h i l d . W e must measure t h e s e f i n d i n g s a g a i n s t some o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e f a t h e r ' s c o n d u c t amounted t o n e g l e c t and a b u s e of p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y . "The a b u s e of p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y i s t h e s u b j e c t of j u d i c i a l c o g n i z a n c e i n a c i v i l a c t i o n b r o u g h t by t h e c h i l d o r by i t s r e l a t i v e w i t h i n t h e t h i r d d e g r e e o r by t h e c o u n t y commissioners of t h e c o u n t y where t h e c h i l d r e s i d e s . When t h e a b u s e i s e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e c h i l d may b e f r e e d from t h e dominion of t h e p a r e n t and t h e d u t y of s u p p o r t and educat i o n enforced." S e c t i o n 40-6-233 MCA. I n t h e a b s e n c e of s t a n d a r d s d e f i n i n g a b u s e i n t h i s s e c t i o n , we r e f e r t o t h e s t a n d a r d s c o n t a i n e d i n C h a p t e r 3 of T i t l e 4 1 on c h i l d a b u s e , n e g l e c t , and dependency. 41-3-102 ( 2 ) MCA p r o v i d e s : Section " ' A b u s e ' o r ' n e g l e c t ' means: " ( a ) t h e commission o r o m i s s i o n o f a n y a c t o r a c t s which m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e normal p h y s i c a l o r e m o t i o n a l development of a y o u t h . Any e x c e s s i v e physical injury, sexual a s s a u l t , o r f a i l u r e t o t h r i v e , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e a g e a n d medic a l h i s t o r y o f t h e y o u t h , s h a l l b e presumed t o b e n o n a c c i d e n t a l and t o m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e normal development o f t h e y o u t h . " ( b ) t h e commission o r o m i s s i o n o f a n y a c t o r a c t s by a n y p e r s o n i n t h e s t a t u s o f p a r e n t , g u a r d i a n , o r c u s t o d i a n who t h e r e b y and by r e a s o n o f p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l i n c a p a c i t y o r o t h e r c a u s e ref u s e s o r , w i t h s t a t e and p r i v a t e a i d and a s s i s t a n c e , i s u n a b l e t o d i s c h a r g e t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r p r o p e r and n e c e s s a r y s u b s i s t e n c e , educat i o n , medical, o r any o t h e r c a r e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e y o u t h ' s p h y s i c a l , m o r a l , and e m o t i o n a l w e l l - b e i n g . " W e h e l d i n Matter o f J . L . B . , St.Rep. 594 P.2d a t 1136, 36 a t 908, t h a t p a r e n t a l d e f i c i e n c i e s by t h e m s e l v e s , a b s e n t some harm t o t h e c h i l d , a r e a n i n s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s upon which t o t e r m i n a t e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . In the present c a s e t h e c h i l d was u n d o u b t e d l y harmed, a l t h o u g h n o t d i r e c t l y a n d s o l e l y by h e r f a t h e r . Y e t , h e knew of h i s d a u g h t e r ' s c i r c u m s t a n c e s and d i d n o t h i n g t o i n t e r v e n e on h e r b e h a l f . c h i l d i n h e r p o s i t i o n h a s a r i g h t t o e x p e c t more. A The f a t h e r ' s argument t h a t t h e c o u r t s o f C a l i f o r n i a would n o t modify t h e o r i g i n a l c u s t o d y w i t h o u t p r o o f o f t h e c h i l d ' s m i s t r e a t m e n t wears t h i n i n l i g h t of t h e f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o e v e n n o t i f y t h e j u v e n i l e a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s o m e t h i n g was wrong. The f a t h e r ' s a t t e m p t t o blame t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t s y s t e m f o r h i s own f a i l u r e t o s e e k a i d f o r h i s c h i l d f o r more t h a n a y e a r w i l l n o t s u f f i c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f a t h e r had a b u s e d h i s p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y by n e g l e c t i n g and a b a n d o n i n g h i s c h i l d u n d e r t h e s e circumstances. W e do n o t f i n d t h i s t o be a n abuse of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o weigh t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t and a r r i v e a t a " c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g " v i e w o f t h e f a c t s . M a t t e r o f J.L.B., 594 P.2d a t 1136, 36 S t . R e p . See a t 908-09. The f i n a l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i s w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had a u t h o r i t y t o name t h e c h i l d ' s a u n t and u n c l e a s h e r general guardians. The f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a u n t and u n c l e ' s complaint d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t t h e c r e a t i o n of a g u a r d i a n s h i p and t h e r e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court could n o t name them as g u a r d i a n s . W e do n o t a g r e e . The c o m p l a i n t f i l e d i n t h i s a c t i o n s o u g h t : (1) To t e r m i n a t e t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s ; (2) t o award f u l l c a r e a n d c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d t o h e r a u n t and uncle; (3) t o obtain a restraining order against the mother's b o y f r i e n d t o p r e v e n t him from m o l e s t i n g t h e c h i l d ; a n d , (4) f o r s u c h o t h e r r e l i e f a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t deemed p r o p e r . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c l e a r l y had power t o a u t h o r i z e a g u a r d i a n s h i p , t h e e f f e c t o f which g i v e s t h e c o u r t c o n t i n u i n g s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e a u n t and u n c l e ' s c a r e and p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e c h i l d , under t h e f o u r t h paragraph of t h e prayer f o r r e l i e f . R u l e 5 4 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides i n part: " E x c e p t a s t o a p a r t y a g a i n s t whom a judgment i s e n t e r e d by d e f a u l t , e v e r y f i n a l judgment s h a l l g r a n t t h e r e l i e f t o which t h e p a r t y i n whose f a v o r it i s rendered i s e n t i t l e d , even i f t h e p a r t y h a s n o t demanded s u c h r e l i e f i n h i s p l e a d ings. " , S e e , S m i t h v . Zepp ( 1 9 7 7 ) , - Mont. 930, 34 S t . R e p . 753, 762; 1 0 C . W r i g h t & A. 567 P.2d 923, M i l l e r , Federal P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e , 92662 a t 96-97. The s t a t u t e u n d e r which p l a i n t i f f s p r o c e e d e d , s e c t i o n 61-111, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n 40-6-233 MCA, clearly gives t h e District Court j u r i s d i c t i o n t o terminate p a r e n t a l r i g h t s : ". . . and when t h e a b u s e i s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e c h i l d may b e f r e e d from t h e dominion o f t h e p a r e n t . . ." Upon t h e p r o p e r t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r e n t a l r i g h t s , a D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s empowered t o name a s u i t a b l e g u a r d i a n o f a n u n m a r r i e d minor. S e c t i o n 72-5-222 o f A s c h e n b r e n n e r (1979) , 36 St.Rep. Mont. MCA. P I See Guardianship - P.2d (No. 14610, d e c i d e d J u l y 1 6 , 1 9 7 9 ) . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e C Q W 4, d , d k -L y , Justices I

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.