MATTER OF M L Y

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE SURPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA I N THE MATTER O M. L. Y . F Youth i n n e e d o f c a r e . AND M. Y . , I N Rl2 THE I.WRRIAGE OF MARVIN LEO YOTTER, P e t i t i o n e r and Respondent, THERESA NEIL YOTTEK PIILLIAMSON, Respondent a n d A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The H o n o r a b l e Diane G. B a r z , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: J o n e s , J o n e s & Work; B l a i r J o n e s , E i l l i n g s , , F o r Respondent : Nye Law Firm; J e r r o l d L. Nye, B i l l i n g s , Montana H a r o l d Eianser , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana O l s e n , C h r i s t e n s e n & G a n n e t t ; Damon L. G a n n e t t , B i l l i n g s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Cecided: Filed: !!KC 1 6 1982 O c t o b e r 7 , 1982 December 1 6 , 1982 M. J u s t i c e J o h n r Court. Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of T h i s a p p e a l was t a k e n f r o m a judgment o f of the M.L.Y. Thirteenth and Judicial Due M.Y. to District procedural the the District Court declaring the c u s t o d y of e r r o r we m u s t vacate the judgment of t h e District C o u r t . The series underlying of disputes d i v o r c e i n 1978. actions between the the latest of and wife since their A t t h e t i m e of d i v o r c e t h e p a r t i e s e n t e r e d into T h e r e s a was t o be t h e c u s t o d i a l i n t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n . t h e two c h i l d r e n . a T h i s a g r e e m e n t was i n c o r p o r a t e d a c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t a g r e e m e n t . p a r e n t of were husband consolidated A l t h o u g h t h e d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n g r a n t e d r e a s o n a b l e v i s i t a t i o n , it appears t h a t Theresa "continued t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h and b l o c k v i s i t a t i o n a t t e m p t s made by M a r v i n I n August 1979 , Marvin t r a v e l e d to S o u t h Dakota, t h e resi- d e n c e o f T h e r e s a and t h e c h i l d r e n , and f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e of A hearing custody. was h e l d and a v i s i t a t i o n a g r e e m e n t was entered into ; unfortunately, visitation rights. In early of without in£orming Marvin located h i s ex-wife and 27, 1980, he t h e p a r t i e s c o n t i n u e d to f i g h t o v e r entered 1980, her Theresa moved whereabouts. to Marvin c h i l d r e n and w e n t to A r i z o n a . into another visitation Arizona later On May agreement with T h e r e s a ; h e would t a k e t h e c h i l d r e n t o Montana f o r t h e summer and would allow t h e c h i l d r e n t o r e t u r n t o A r i z o n a o n o r a b o u t A u g u s t 15. Marvin motion returned for change of C o u n t y on J u l y 8 . f i l e d on A u g u s t 5 . t o Montana w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n and a c u s t o d y i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t of Yellowstone An amended m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e of c u s t o d y was On A u g u s t 2 8 , D i s t r i c t J u d g e C h a r l e s Luedke d e n i e d M a r v i n ' s amended m o t i o n w i t h o u t h e a r i n g . Judge Luedke's filed o r d e r denying h i s motion a p p e a l on S e p t e m b e r 9 . and Marvin d i s p u t e d filed a n o t i c e of However, o n S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , M a r v i n f i l e d a document e n t i t l e d "Withdrawal of Appeal. " During custody of t h i s t i m e period, M.L.Y. and M.Y. T h e r e s a came t o Montana t o r e g a i n T h e r e s a was n o t able to find the children. Marvin, regain custody, wife. intending had to frustrate Theresa's s e n t t h e c h i l d r e n to U t a h w i t h h i s p r e s e n t Twice d u r i n g t h e month of f o r custodial involved filing authority and a September Marvin w a s a r r e s t e d On S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , interference. by e f f o r t s to petition protective for t h e S t a t e became temporary services. investigative District The Court then o r d e r e d t h e c h i l d r e n p l a c e d i n f o s t e r care p e n d i n g f i n a l d i s p o s i tion. On November 20 , M a r v i n was s u c c e s s f u l i n p e r s u a d i n g t h e c o u r t t o o r d e r t h e c h i l d r e n removed from f o s t e r care and p l a c e d i n h i s On t h e same d a y , Marvin f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r c h a n g e of custody. c u s t o d y and a m o t i o n t o c o n s o l i d a t e t h e d e p e n d e n c y and neglect On t h a t d a y J u d g e Luedke proceedings with h i s custody action. ordered consolidation. A lengthy November 9 , 1981. S e r v i c e s was eighteen, custody rights trial until of final A The D e p a r t m e n t of granted and ensued. legal Marvin age was eighteen. visitation. On was entered on S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n c u s t o d y of granted order the children until guardianship Theresa December 8, was and granted 1981, age physical reasonable Theresa filed a n o t i c e of appeal. The appellant has raised several i s s u e s concerning various a c t i o n s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n r e l a t i o n t o j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h e consolidation of neglect action. the custody First, action and the dependency a p p e l l a n t claims t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n over the custody action since the had f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal, t h i s Court. appellant and father thus transferring jurisdiction to Second, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l argument, contends it was e r r o r to c o n s o l i d a t e the two c a u s e s b e c a u s e t o d o s o was p r e j u d i c i a l ; " [ t l h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s h o u l d n o t be r e q u i r e d t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e of Montana and the n o n c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s e e k i n g c u s t o d y i n o n e and t h e same a c t i o n ." W e need o n l y a d d r e s s t h e f i r s t i s s u e . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e a n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d b y h e r husband from d i s m i s s a l of h i s amended m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e of c u s t o d y , t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p a r t i e s and t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r had passed to this Court, leaving t h e District Court without a u t h o r i t y to a s s e r t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b s e q u e n t p e t i t i o n f o r change of custody. At t h i s time we must restate t h e chronology o f v a r i o u s documents: 1. On August 28, 1980, the Court District denied the f a t h e r ' s amended m o t i o n f o r c h a n g e of c u s t o d y . 2. On 9, September 1980, the father filed a notice of appeal. 3. On S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a document e n t i t l e d ''Withdrawal of Appeal." 4. On November change of 20, 1980, the father filed a petition for c u s t o d y and a m o t i o n to c o n s o l i d a t e h i s p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e d e p e n d e n c y and n e g l e c t a c t i o n f i l e d by t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e C o u n t y Attorney's Office. On t h e same d a y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d consolidation. Initially, timely; denial of the motion for change of See Rule 5, Such a t i m e l y f i l i n g v e s t s t h i s C o u r t w i t h j u r i s - 5 2 6 , 5 2 8 , 38 S t . R e p . been filed, Mont . _ , 625 " [ s j i n c e 1954 it 1 2 8 , 130, we s t a t e d : h a s been an e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e has appeal was the District C o u r t ' s custody. I n J u l i a n v. B u c k l e y ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - -- diction. appeal n o t i c e of i t was f i l e d w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s of M.R.App.Civ.P. P.2d we note t h a t the husband's i n Montana t h a t when a n o t i c e of jurisdiction over the parties to the c o n t r o v e r s y and s u b j e c t m a t t e r p a s s e s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and v e s t s i n t h e Supreme C o u r t . " I t i s a r g u e d t h a t t h e a p p e a l was n e v e r p e r f e c t e d b e c a u s e f e e was n o t p a i d n o r w a s t h e r e c o r d sequence, jurisdiction was never transferred, acquired by the and as a conthis Court. However, t h e p r o p o n e n t s o f t h i s a r g u m e n t o v e r l o o k a s t a t e m e n t i n t h e comments t o R u l e 4 , the filing required of a notice " [n]o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n M.R.App.Civ.P.: of appeal in the f o r t h e p e r f e c t i n g of an appeal." District Annotations Court is to MCA, 540 3, 1980, the date the n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was f i l e d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h i s Court's Vol. Title 25, p. On S e p t e m b e r 9 , 543. j u r i s d i c t i o n w a s invoked. On S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a document w i t h t h e 1980, D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n d i c a t i n g h i s i n t e n t i o n s to w i t h d r a w h i s a p p e a l . The d o c u m e n t s i m p l y s a i d "NOW COMES t h e P e t i t i o n e r and w i t h d r a w s his appeal herein. DATED this 26th day of September, 1980." states t h a t " [ i ] f an appeal h a s not been R u l e 3 6 , M.R.App.Civ.P. d o c k e t e d t h e a p p e a l may be d i s m i s s e d b y t h e c o u r t from w h i c h t h e a p p e a l was t a k e n . . . upon m o t i o n and n o t i c e by t h e a p p e l l a n t . " N o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s e i t h e r m o t i o n or n o t i c e . conclude that the father's document entitled W e must "Withdrawal A p p e a l " was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o d i v e s t t h i s C o u r t of of its jurisdic- . . . w i l l be p e r m i t t e d t o . . . i s a matter w i t h i n t h e " W h e t h e r or n o t t h e a p p e l l a n t tion. dismiss o r withdraw his appeal d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , and n o t a m a t t e r of r i g h t on t h e p a r t of . . ." the appellant - p p e a- . --- E r r o - S e c t i o n 9 2 0 A l and r 5 Arn.Jur.2d (1962). The r u l e s o f a p p e l l a t e c i v i l p r o c e d u r e m u s t be f o l l o w e d , h e r e t h e y were n o t . f o r change of Consequently, when t h e c u s t o d y on November was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n and 20, father filed a petition 1980, the District Court i t was error to e n t e r a n o r d e r of consolidation. Montana law jurisdiction is clear, once a notice over the subject matter v e s t s of appeal is filed, i n t h e Supreme C o u r t and it "becomes t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d u t y to m a i n t a i n t h e s t a t u s quo of J -ulian, - the parties until the , Mont. a t - - .- - We vacate controversy 6 2 5 P.2d can be determined a t 5 2 8 , 38 S t . R e p . ." a t 130. t h e o r d e r s of the D i s t r i c t Court dated August 24, 1 9 8 1 , and November 9 , 1 9 8 1 . I n t h e i n t e r e s t s of m i n i m i z i n g harm to the November the children, 20, natural we reinstate the order 1980, p l a c i n g t h e c h i l d r e n father. If r e i n s t i t u t e proceedings, the state o r of the court dated i n temporary c u s t o d y of if the f a t h e r choose to t h e y may d o s o w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s from the date this decision is handed down, without prejudice. However, i f no p r o c e e d i n g s a r e i n i t i a t e d , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m u s t uphold the mother's custody rights by ordering the children r e t u r n e d t o h e r care. 4 ustice ':Je concur:

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.