WILSON v WILSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14316 IN THE SUPRFME CXUHT OF THE STATE OF' MONTANA 1978 IXlRLENE L W S , . I m L Petitioner and Appellant, -vsWILLIAM A. WILSON, Respondent and Respondent. Ap1 from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Homrable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appllant: Schulz, Davis & Warren, Dillon, Mntana Thanas Dooling, Dillon, b5c)ntar-m For Respondent: W. G. G i l b e r t 1 1 Dillon, I%ntana 1, Suhnitted on briefs: Decided: ke: - ? Filed : ?-E- October 30, 1978 FEF 37!3 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l i s b r o u g h t by D a r l e n e Wilson from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 , County of Beaverhead, i n which t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d W i l l i a m Wilson, h e r former husband, c u s t o d y of t h e i r t h r e e minor children. Mrs. Wilson (now P a r k s ) c o n t e n d s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n two r e s p e c t s and i t s c u s t o d y d e c r e e s h o u l d b e r e v e r s e d and c u s t o d y g r a n t e d t o h e r . F i r s t she argues t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g a v e t o o much w e i g h t i n i t s c u s t o d y f i n d i n g s P t o h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h one ~ i c h a r d arks during t h e period a f t e r h e r s e p a r a t i o n from h e r husband. Second s h e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by cond u c t i n g a p r i v a t e o f f - r e c o r d i n t e r v i e w i n chambers w i t h h e r two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n , aged n i n e and t e n y e a r s , f o r t h e purp o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g w i t h which p a r e n t t h e y p r e f e r r e d t o live. The i s s u e s f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n are: 1. Does a D i s t r i c t C o u r t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e when it c o n s i d e r s a p a r e n t ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p and c o n d u c t w i t h a n o t h e r p e r s o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e children? 2. I t i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r a D i s t r i c t Court t o conduct a n off-record interview with t h e c h i l d r e n of a d i s s o l v e d m a r r i a g e t o d e t e r m i n e w i t h which p a r e n t t h e y would prefer t o live? W i l l i a m and D a r l e n e Wilson w e r e m a r r i e d a t B i l l i n g s , Montana, i n 1963. 1968 and 1972. They had t h r e e c h i l d r e n b o r n i n 1967, D a r l e n e Wilson p r e s e n t e d h e r p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on September 27, 1977, a l l e g i n g t h a t h e r m a r r i a g e w i t h r e s p o n d e n t was i r r e t r i e v a b l y broken and f u t h e r a l l e g i n g t h a t it was i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n t o be i n h e r custody. On Octo- b e r 4 , 1977, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d p e t i t i o n e r temporary c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n and o r d e r e d r e s p o n d e n t t o pay $75 p e r c h i l d p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t of t h e p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n . The D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o a t t e n d conc i l i a t i o n conferences with l o c a l clergy but these conferences proved u n s u c c e s s f u l . On February 1 4 , 1978, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d a d i s s o l u t i o n and o r d e r e d a h e a r i n g on c h i l d c u s t o d y , c h i l d s u p p o r t and p r o p e r t y d i v i s i o n . P r i o r t o t h e custody h e a r i n g r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m i n which he a l l e g e d t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor c h i l d r e n would be s e r v e d i f he were g r a n t e d custody. A t t h e h e a r i n g t h e d i s t r i c t judge, s i t t i n g without a j u r y , took testimony on t h e l i f e s t y l e s of respondent and p e t i t i o n e r and concluded t h a t respondent was b e t t e r s u i t e d t o r a i s e t h e c h i l d r e n t h a n was p e t i t i o n e r . I n a "Memo of t h e Court" d a t e d March 2 4 , 1978, t h e judge summarized h i s view of t h e testimony r e l a t i n g t o M r s . W i l s o n ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P a r k s and how t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p a f f e c t e d h e r a b i l i t y t o properly r a i s e her children: "We have r e c i t e d t h e f o r e g o i n g t o show t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s been t r a p p e d i n a mad i n f a t u a t i o n o v e r a comparative male s t r a n g e r , e s t a b l i s h i n g i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s w i t h him, going s o f a r a s t o s c a n d a l i z e h e r c h i l d r e n of t e n d e r y e a r s by perm i t t i n g h e r d a u g h t e r t o s e e them i n bed t o g e t h e r , b r e a k i n g up h e r home and t h e home of h e r c h i l d r e n , when a t t h e o u t s e t of h e r p h i l a n d e r i n g s h e confessed her love f o r t h e f a t h e r of her children. " I n s h o r t , M r s . Wilson i s n o t a f i t and proper person t o e n t r u s t t h r e e i n n o c e n t c h i l d r e n t o h e r c u s t o d y , c a r e and c o n t r o l . " I n c o n t r a s t t h e judge concluded t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s needs f o r proper u p b r i n g i n g would be met i f custody were g r a n t e d t o t h e i r father: "These c h i l d r e n need a good moral atmosphere and s u r r o u n d i n g s t o mature i n . A l l of t h e s e t h i n g s t h e y w i l l have i n t h e home of t h e i r f a t h e r . . ." I n i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s d a t e d March 2 4 , 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were d i s t u r b e d by t h e i r m o t h e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P a r k s and t h a t t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s would be s e r v e d by g r a n t i n g custody t o t h e i r father. The c o u r t a l s o noted t h e r e s u l t s of i t s in-chambers i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e two o l d e s t c h i l d r e n , t h a t they p r e f e r r e d t o l i v e with t h e i r f a t h e r . O a p p e a l p e t i t i o n e r contends t h e c o u r t abused i t s d i s n c r e t i o n by p l a c i n g emphasis on t h e moral atmosphere i n h e r home, e s p e c i a l l y t h e m a t t e r of h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P a r k s . She a r g u e s t h a t t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t s h e i s n o t a " f i t " p a r e n t i s n o t supported by competent e v i d e n c e , b u t r a t h e r o n l y by a n " i n d i s c r e t i o n " on h e r p a r t which " i n a s t r i c t l y r e l i g i o u s sense c o n s t i t u t e s a s i n . . ." Petitioner c i t e s Love v . Love ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 303, 533 P.2d 280, t o s u p p o r t h e r argument t h a t t h e mother should be g i v e n some d e g r e e of p r e f e r e n c e and t h e need t o show n o t o n l y t h a t t h e mother i s u n f i t but also t h a t the father i s f i t t o care for the children. This c o n t e n t i o n , however, must be viewed i n t h e l i g h t of two p r i n c i p l e s which t h i s Court h a s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d . F i r s t , t h i s Court does n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a c h i l d custody c a s e i s t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n . The D i s t r i c t Court has a much b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t y t h a n t h i s Court t o make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of how t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w e l f a r e w i l l be b e s t s e r v e d and t h u s t h e custody d e c i s i o n i s l e f t l a r g e l y t o that court's discretion. Unless t h e D i s t r i c t Court h a s c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n , i t s custody d e c i s i o n w i l l n o t be o v e r r u l e d . I n r e Marriage of Brown (1978) , Mont. , 587 ~ , 2 d 361, 364, 35 St.Rep. 1733, 1738. Second, t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r of g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y t o t h e mother i s never conclusive. I n s t e a d "each c h i l d custody c a s e w i l l be d e c i d e d on i t s own f a c t s r a t h e r t h a n by t h e u s e of l i n g o r conclusive presumption.'" (1977) I , Mont. 337, 341. 'control- I n r e M a r r i a g e of Tweeten 563 P.2d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 4 , 34 St.Rep. The m a t e r n a l p r e f e r e n c e p r e s u m p t i o n s t i l l e x i s t s , b u t i t s u s e i s l i m i t e d t o t h o s e c a s e s i n which t h e f a t h e r h a s n o t overcome i t by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f e v i d e n c e showing him t o b e t h e more f i t p a r e n t t o have c u s t o d y . , r i a g e of I s l e r ( 1 9 7 7 ) , - Mont. St.Rep. 545, 548. I n r e Mar- 566 P.2d 55, 58, 34 To overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h e f a t h e r need n o t show t h a t t h e mother i s u n f i t b u t o n l y t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n would b e b e t t e r o f f w i t h him. Brown , Mont. a t , 587 P.2d a t 366, 35 St.Rep. 1739; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f I s l e r , a t 58, 34 St.Rep. a t 548. I n r e M a r r i a g e of Mont. a t , at 566 P.2d To t h e e x t e n t t h a t Love h o l d s o t h e r w i s e , i t i s no l o n g e r f o l l o w e d . I n t h i s c a s e t h e r e c o r d shows s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Wilson c h i l d r e n would b e b e t t e r off w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r . R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-212 MCA, S e c t i o n 48-332, sets f o r t h f i v e c r i t e r i a upon which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f what c u s t o d i a l a r r a n g e m e n t w i l l b e 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 r e n . These are: t h e w i s h e s of t h e p a r e n t s a s t o custody; t h e wishes of t h e children; t h e c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r a c t i o n and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r p a r e n t s , w i t h e a c h o t h e r , and w i t h o t h e r s who may s i g n i ficantly a f f e c t t h e i r best interests; the children's adjustment t o home, s c h o o l and community; a n d , t h e m e n t a l and physical h e a l t h of a l l i n d i v i d u a l s involved. From t h e evidence presented, it i s c l e a r t h a t both p a r e n t s wish t o have c u s t o d y of t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n . The two o l d e r c h i l d r e n t o l d t h e d i s t r i c t judge t h a t t h e y would p r e f e r t o l i v e w i t h their father. T h e r e was t e s t i m o n y from t h e f a t h e r t h a t t h e children w e r e not w i l l i n g t o r e t u r n t o t h e i r mother's t r a i l e r a f t e r weekend v i s i t s w i t h him. The c o u r t a l s o h e a r d t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e home l i f e t o which t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e exposed d u r i n g D a r l e n e W i l s o n ' s temporary c u s t o d y . The p a r t i e s a r g u e a b o u t t h e e f f e c t s on t h e c h i l d r e n of D a r l e n e ' s p e r m i t t i n g R i c h a r d P a r k s t o spend n i g h t s with her before they w e r e married. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a t t a c h e d some s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p as a n i n d i c a t i o n of Darlene's f i t n e s s a s a parent. dence does n o t s t o p with t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . But t h e e v i The c o u r t t o o k t e s t i m o n y o n W i l l i a m W i l s o n ' s a b i l i t i e s t o care f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and h i s p r o p e n s i t i e s t o p r o v i d e them w i t h a p r o p e r upbringing. W i l l i a m showed e v i d e n c e of s t e a d y monthly income and a d e q u a t e h o u s i n g . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s job would n o t p r e v e n t him from k e e p i n g h i s y o u n g e s t s o n w i t h him d u r i n g t h e day and t h a t t h e r e were o f t e n o t h e r c h i l d r e n around a t t h e f a r m s where h e d e l i v e r s f e e d and f e r t i l i z e r . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e had e x p e r i e n c e i n p r e p a r i n g meals f o r t h e c h i l d r e n and g e t t i n g them o f f t o s c h o o l b e f o r e t h e s e p a r a t i o n when h i s w i f e had t o l e a v e e a r l y i n t h e morning f o r work. F i n a l l y , t h e c o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y of h i s r e g u l a r c h u r c h a t t e n d a n c e and h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o a s s i s t t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r m o r a l and s p i r i t u a l development. The c h i l d r e n w i l l have t o spend some t i m e i n day c a r e a t t h e end of e a c h s c h o o l day i f t h e i r f a t h e r h a s c u s t o d y , which, from t h e r e c o r d , would a p p a r e n t l y n o t be n e c e s s a r y i f t h e y s t a y e d w i t h t h e i r mother. I n b a l a n c e , t h e c o u r t concluded t h a t t h e f a t h e r i s b e t t e r s u i t e d t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the children. w h i l e a r e l a t i o n s h i p such a s Darlene Wilson had w i t h ~ i c h a r d a r k s may n o t i n i t s e l f be a d e q u a t e t o s u p p o r t a P f i n d i n g of h e r u n f i t n e s s a s a p a r e n t , e s p e c i a l l y i n a change o f custody proceeding, Foss v . L e i f e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 97, 550 P.2d 1309, t h e D i s t r i c t Court should n o t be d i r e c t e d t o i g n o r e a p a r e n t ' s a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e home. I n any e v e n t , t h e scope of t h i s review remains l i m i t e d and t h e i s s u e i s n o t whether t h e evidence shows t h e mother t o be u n f i t b u t o n l y whether t h e evidence s u p p o r t s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w e l f a r e would be b e s t served by g r a n t i n g custody t o I n t h i s c a s e i t does. the father. There i s no showing by p e t i t i o n e r t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court m a n i f e s t l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by g r a n t i n g custody t o t h e f a t h e r , a l t h o u g h i t may n o t have been n e c e s s a r y t o c h a r a c t e r i z e Darlene Wilson a s an u n f i t parent. P e t i t i o n e r ' s second i s s u e d e a l s w i t h t h e o f f - r e c o r d i n t e r v i e w which t h e judge h e l d w i t h t h e two o l d e s t Wilson children. A t t h e r e q u e s t of William Wilson d u r i n g t h e custody h e a r i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t judge i n t e r v i e w e d t h e c h i l d r e n i n chambers. They were accompanied by T e r r i S t a n i s i c h , a guidance c o u n s e l o r a t t h e i r s c h o o l . N r e c o r d was made, and o n e i t h e r p a r e n t was r e p r e s e n t e d a t t h i s meeting. At a s e p a r a t e h e a r i n g b e f o r e a d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t judge, ~ e r r i S t a n i s i c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e brought t h e c h i l d r e n i n t o t h e chambers where t h e judge conducted t h e i n t e r v i e w . She s a i d t h a t t h e judge f i r s t asked a g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n about s c h o o l and t e a c h e r s , t h e n asked t h e c h i l d r e n which p a r e n t t h e y preferred t o l i v e with. "So t h e n h e asked them which p a r e n t , I d o n ' t remember j u s t how he worded i t , b u t which p a r e n t t h e y would p r e f e r t o l i v e w i t h , and t h e y answered, t h e i r f a t h e r . Both of them, and t h e y b o t h were nodding t h e i r head when they s a i d i t . " Following t h e i n t e r v i e w , t h e ~ i s t r i c Court e n t e r e d a t finding t h a t t h e children preferred t o l i v e with t h e i r father. S e c t i o n 48-334 (1) R.C.M. , 1947, now s e c t i o n 40-4-214 (1) MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e c o u r t "may i n t e r v i e w t h e c h i l d i n chambers t o a s c e r t a i n t h e c h i l d ' s wishes a s t o h i s c u s t o d i a n and a s t o v i s i t a t i o n " . I t leaves t h e court discretion t o p e r m i t c o u n s e l t o be p r e s e n t . However, i t a l s o mandates t h a t when a c o u r t does i n t e r v i e w c h i l d r e n i n chambers, i t " s h a l l c a u s e a r e c o r d of t h e i n t e r v i e w t o be made and t o be p a r t of t h e r e c o r d i n t h e c a s e . " Whether t h e f a i l u r e t o make a r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e r e q u i r e s a remand i s t h e q u e s t i o n presented here. The l a c k of both a r e c o r d of t h e i n t e r v i e w and -a s p e c i f i c finding a s t o the children's preference n e c e s s i t a t e d a remand i n I n r e Marriage of Brown, - Mont at , 587 P.2d a t 366, 35 St.Rep. a t 1739. r e Marriage of Kramer ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 4 4 4 , 35 St.Rep. 700, 706. Mont. . See a l s o , I n , 580 P.2d 439, The r a t i o n a l e of t h e Court i n Brown was t h a t w i t h o u t t h e s e t h i n g s , i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e t h e b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s custody r u l i n g : "Without t h e r e c o r d of t h e i n t e r v i e w and w i t h o u t s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s a s t o t h e wishes of t h e c h i l d r e n , c o u n s e l and t h i s C o u r t do n o t know w i t h any d e g r e e of c e r t a i n t y t h e b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t Court's conclusion , 587 P.2d a t on custody " - Mont. a t 366, 35 St.Rep. a t 1739. . While t h e p r a c t i c e of conducting o f f - r e c o r d i n t e r v i e w s i s n o t d e s i r a b l e f o r t h e r e a s o n g i v e n i n Brown, t h e l a c k of a r e c o r d a l o n e h a s n o t always r e q u i r e d r e v e r s a l . The p a r t i e s t o t h e custody proceeding may even s t i p u l a t e t h a t no r e c o r d w i l l b e made and p r o v i d e d t h e w i s h e s of t h e c h i l d r e n as t o c u s t o d y a r e f o l l o w e d , a remand may n o t b e n e c e s s a r y . v . Chapman ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 89, 93-94. Mont. 1 - P.2d , Counts 36 St.Rep. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d make a f i n d i n g a s t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w i s h e s and e n t e r e d i t s d e c r e e according t o those wishes. The s e p a r a t e h e a r i n g i n which T e r r i S t a n i s i c h t e s t i f i e d p r o v i d e s a view o f what happened d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w , which s u p p o r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s findings. Thus, t h e p a r t i c u l a r problems w i t h t h e l a c k of f i n d i n g and r e c o r d which r e q u i r e d a remand i n Brown a r e n o t p r e s e n t h e r e and i . t a p p e a r s t h a t a remand f o r t h e p u r p o s e of a n " o n - r e c o r d " i n t e r v i e w would s e r v e l i t t l e p u r p o s e . Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e , no remand i s n e c e s s a r y . The d e c r e e o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y t o W i l l i a m Wilson i s a f f i r m e d . / W e concur: &a42 Chief j u s t i c e 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.