GILMORE v BOEHM (GILMORE)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12661 I N T E SUPREME C U T OF T E STATE O MONTANA H OR H F 1974 DANIEL J. GILMORE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, RENEE GILMORE, now known a s RENEE BOEHM, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o5)the F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Peter-W. Meloy , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Smith and Harper, Helena, Montana Charles A. Smith, 1 1 argued, Helena, Montana 1 For Respondent : Charles E. P e t a j a argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided : September 1 7 , 1974 j ~ -8 h C 1 ,I M r . 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 Court. This i s an a p p e a l from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Lewis and C l a r k County, awarding custody o f t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r , Daniel J . Gilmore, who brought t h e a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o a f f i r m an o r d e r by a North Dakota d i s t r i c t c o u r t awarding him custody o f t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n . The North Dakota c o u r t a l s o awarded t h e f a t h e r c h i l d support from t h e mother. Both p a r t i e s and t h e North Dakota Court have consented t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Montana c o u r t The mother appealed t h e o r d e r o f t h e Lewis and Clark County d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n e d r e q u e s t i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e of t h e custody award t~ g r a n t h e r custody o f h e r t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n , Robert, B r e t t , and Brandie, and r e a s o n a b l e c h i l d support. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied t h e mother's c o u n t e r p e t i t i o n and h e l d t h e f a t h e r was e n t i t l e d t o c o n t i n u e having custody and c o n t r o l of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n . Appellant and respondent were married f o r s i x y e a r s and t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n were t h e i s s u e of t h a t marriage. a r e 7 , 5 , and 3 . T h e i r ages The p a r t i e s were divorced on June 19, 1 9 7 2 , i n ~ i s m a r c k ,North Dakota, a t which time t h e I?orth Dakota c o u r t awarded t h e custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t h e r . The f a t h e r now works a t t h e Helena X-G Men's S t o r e , e a r n i n g $900 p e r month p l u s bonuses. He works f o u r days a week from 9:30 a.m. and on Saturdays from 9:30 a.m. t o 6:30 p.m. t o 9:00 p.m., He h a s a l i c e n s e d day c a r e c e n t e r t o provide f o r t h e c h i l d r e n d u r i n g t h e weekdays. On weekends and n i g h t s o u t , he has a b a b y s i t t e r watch t h e c h i l d r e n . I n January 1973, t h e mother was r e m a r r i e d t o a 23 y e a r o l d employee of t h e B i l l i n g s K-Z Men's S t o r e , e a r n i n g $450 p e r month. A t t h e time of t h e i n s t a n t a c t i o n , s h e was planning t o q u i t h e r j o b ; s h e w a s f o u r months pregnant; and she and h e r husband were i n t h e process of purchasing a new t h r e e bedroom mobile home. A t t h e time of t h e d i v o r c e , t h e mother agreed t h e f a t h e r should have custody of t h e c h i l d r e n because she was f i n a n c i a l l y unable t o c a r e f o r them and, e m o t i o n a l l y , t h e f a t h e r could b e t t e r c a r e f o r t h e children. The mother now argues t h e r e h a s been a change of circum- s t a n c e s which w a r r a n t s a m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e custody d e c r e e . She a r g u e s t h a t s i n c e she has remarried she now has t h e a b i l i t y t o provide and g i v e h e r c h i l d r e n t h e c a r e and a t t e n t i o n they need on a f u l l time b a s i s ; t h a t she i s r e s t o r e d i n emotional h e a l t h ; and, t h e c h i l d r e n now need t h e mother's a t t e n t i o n and c a r e and a normal home l i f e r a t h e r than t h e a t t e n t i o n and c a r e "which has been d e l e g a t e d t o s t r a n g e r s on a p e r diem b a s i s . " The mother f u r t h e r a r g u e s 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 n demand t h e i r custody be changed t o t h e i r mother and c i t e s s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M. 1947, i n support o f h e r p o s i t i o n : I1 A s between p a r e n t s a d v e r s e l y c l a i m i n g 2. custody o r g u a r d i a n s h i p , n e i t h e r p a r e n t i s t i t l e d t o i t a s of r i g h t ; but o t h e r t h i n g s e q u a l , i f t h e c h i l d be of t e n d e r y e a r s , i t be given t o t h e mother *. " ** the enbeing should Appellant mother makes a s t r o n g argument c i t i n g a l l t h e accepted c a s e s on t h e s u b j e c t of change of c o n d i t i o n s and w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of c h i l d r e n and then concludes t h a t t h e r e i s a p r i o r i t y of some kind between t h e two expressed i n Bayers v. Bayers, 129 Mont. 1, 6, 281 P.2d 506: 11 1 I n custody c a s e s , t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e , paramount t o a l l o t h e r s , i s t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d . I n no way i n c o n f l i c t w i t h t h i s r u l e i s a n o t h e r , e q u a l l y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d , t h a t once a c o u r t has decreed i t t h e r e may be no change i n t h e c h i l d ' s custody except where adequate cause t h e r e f o r a r i s e s o u t o f changed c o n d i t i o n s . This p r i n c i p l e i s based on t h e i d e a n o t only t h a t t h e s t a b i l i t y of t h e home l i f e of t h e c h i l d r e n i s an important and v i t a l f a c t o r , b u t a l s o t h a t t h e t u r m o i l of l i t i g a t i o n must somewhere end."' A p p e l l a n t ' s c i t a t i o n s a r e p e r f e c t l y v a l i d and e x p r e s s t h e doct r i n e s involved b u t they b e a r no p r i o r i t y r e l a t i o n s h i p , o n l y a qualifying relation. There must be a change of circumstances o r c o n d i t i o n s from t h e ci.rcumstances t h a t e x i s t e d a t t h e time of t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e and upon which t h e d e c r e e was based under s e c t i o n 91-4515, R.C.M 1947, which provides t h a t i n awarding t h e custody of minor c h i l d r e n t h e c o u r t i s t o be guided: "By what appears t o be f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t-he c h i l d i n r e s p e c t t o i t s temporal and i t s mental and moral w e l f a r e *.'I ** The claimed change i n c o n d i t i o n s o r circumstances can be judged on no l e s s e r standard. Appellant q u a r r e l s w i t h t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s X I and X I I , which fFnd no change o f circumstances from June 19, 1972, i n Bismarck, North Dakota, t o t h e p r e s e n t was demonstrated t 2 the court. Appellant c i t e s s e v e r a l c a s e s and r e l i e s on McCullough v. McCullough, 159 Mont. 419, 498 P.2d 118?, as an almost i d e n t i c a l fact s i t u a t i o n where t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found a change of circumstances and t h i s Court a f f i r m e d . F i r s t , the cases a r e distinguishable on t h e f a c t s and t h e q u a l i t y of t h e evidence. c o u r t i n McCullough Second, t h e d i s t r i c t found a change of circumstances on t h e e v i - dence p r e s e n t e d i n t h a t c a s e and when appealed i t was n o t our province t o review t h e r e c o r d of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o determine i f we agreed w i t h t h e c o n c l u s i o n s reached, i f supported by c r e d i b l e evidence. W must i n d u l g e i n t h e presumption t h e judgment o f t h e e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e evidence a g a i n s t i t , when viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . and Brown v. Seaton Ranch Co., Stromberg 160 Mont. 293, 502 P.2d 41. I The i n s t a n t c a s e came t o t h i s Court f o r review upon a d e n i a l of a change of circumstances and we must g r a n t t h e s e same presumptions and when s o doing f i n d c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The f a c t s show t h e c h i l d r e n , a t t h e time of t h i s a c t i o n , had l i v e d w i t h t h e i r f a t h e r f o r a year. A l l persons who t e s t i f i e d agreed t h e f a t h e r was a f i t person and agreed he c a r e d f o r t h e c h i l d r e n w e l l . The mother s t i p u l a t e d t h e f a t h e r was a f i t person t o c a r e f o r t h e children. The s o c i a l worker, who t e s t i f i e d a s an e x p e r t w i t n e s s , stated: "Although t h e mother may be very capable of c a r i n g f o r the children, I believe that t o subject the children t o separation again i s not 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 r e n e s p e c i a l l y i f one i s t o c o n s i d e r t h e very s a t i s f a c t o r y s i t u a t i o n t h e y a r e now experiencing. 11 I n McCullough and a g a i n i n t h e most r e c e n t d e c i s i o n concerning t h i s problem, I n r e Adoption of B i e r y , 1377, 1378, 3 1 St.Rep. Mnn t , , 522 P.2d. 461, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "1n a l l such c a s e s t h e c r u c i a l f a c t ~ r s t h e c h i l d ' s i w e l f a r e , both m a t e r i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l , c o n s i d e r i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e t i e s of a f f e c t i o n t h e c h i l d has formed and t h e consequences of b r e a k i n g t h o s e t i e s , * ** "What i s , o r what i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d depends upon t h e f a c t s and circumstances of each c a s e . The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d e c i d i n g custody i s a d e l i c a t e one which i s lodged w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The judge h e a r i n g o r a l testimony i n such a c o n t r o v e r s y h a s a s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining t h e same, and h i s d e c i s i o n ought n o t t~ be d i s t u r b e d except upon a c l e a r showing o f abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . [ C i t i n g c a s e s ] " W f i n d no abuse of t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n . e t04 Concur: ' i Chief J u s t i c e Justices. The judg-
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.
