MATTER OF INQUIRY INTO J J S

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13922 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA IN THE MATTER OF INQUIRY INTO J.J.S., Youth In Need of Care. Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: John R. Prater argued, Terry, Montana For Respondent : V. G. Koch, County Attorney, Sidney, Montana Richard G. Phillips, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Sidney, Montana Thomas Mahan, Helena, Montana Submitted: March 7, 1978 .APR Decided. Filed: - T? - " . -.:-L 1 J --3 1978 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s of a minor c h i l d from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Richland County. I n t h e judgment, permanent c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d w i t h t h e r i g h t t o c o n s e n t t o a d o p t i o n was awarded t o t h e Department of S o c i a l & R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS) of t h e S t a t e of Montana. The minor c h i l d was b o r n t o a p p e l l a n t s o n J u l y 9, 1975, i n D i c k i n s o n , North Dakota. A t t h e t i m e of h i s b i r t h , h i s f a t h e r was 26 y e a r s o l d and h i s mother was 1 6 y e a r s o l d . I n 1976, t h e f a m i l y moved t o Wolf P o i n t , Montana. On o r a b o u t March 2 4 , 1976, t h e f a t h e r was i n j a i l f o r drunkenn e s s . I t was a t t h i s t i m e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s f i r s t came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h SRS, t h r o u g h t h e R o o s e v e l t County W e l f a r e Department. The w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t e n r o l l e d t h e f a t h e r i n a n a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t program i n Havre, which he a t t e n d e d f o r a b o u t a week. On A p r i l 1 9 , 1976, h e was a r r e s t e d f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d . From March u n t i l J u l y 1976, t h e a p p e l l a n t s and t h e i r minor c h i l d were b e i n g a s s i s t e d by t h e R o o s e v e l t County W e l f a r e Department. I n J u l y 1976, a p p e l l a n t s , w i t h t h e i r c h i l d , moved t o S i d n e y , Montana. The R o o s e v e l t County W e l f a r e Department r e f e r r e d a p p e l l a n t s ' c a s e t o t h e R i c h l a n d County Welfare Department. I t f i r s t made c o n t a c t w i t h a p p e l l a n t s , i n t h e i r home, on o r a b o u t J u l y 2 3 , 1976. The s o c i a l worker who made t h e i n i t i a l c o n t a c t i n S i d n e y , d e s c r i b e d a p p e l l a n t s f home a s "filthy". A follow-up was made on J u l y 27, same f i l t h y c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d . 1976, and t h e The w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t a r r a n g e d homemaker s e r v i c e s f o r a p p e l l a n t s . Throughout August and September, 1976, t h e s e f i l t h y c o n d i t i o n s c o n t i n u e d . When t h e s o c i a l worker made a v i s i t on September 29, 1976, s h e found t h e minor c h i l d was c r a w l i n g around on t h e f l o o r which was c o v e r e d w i t h a s h e s and c i g a r e t t e r e m a i n s , and h e was e a t i n g bread crumbs o f f t h e f l o o r . I n October 1976, c o n d i t i o n s i n a p p e l l a n t s ' home had n o t improved. There was g a r b a g e on t h e k i t c h e n f l o o r , t h e c h i l d was i n w e t d i a p e r s , soaked and p h y s i c a l l y f i l t h y . B e s i d e s p r o v i d i n g homemaker s e r v i c e s , w e l f a r e a r r a n g e d f o r day c a r e a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e child. The day c a r e worker t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e c h i l d was b r o u g h t i n , he w a s f i l t h y , h i s h a i r s m e l l e d of u r i n e , and t h e t o p s o f h i s f e e t were b l a c k . The R i c h l a n d County W e l f a r e Department a l s o g o t t h e f a t h e r i n t o two a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t programs. He did not f i n i s h e i t h e r one. On November 1 9 , 1976, t h e R i c h l a n d County W e l f a r e Department p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r temporary c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d . On November 24, 1976, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e c h i l d w a s p l a c e d i n a f o s t e r home. The w e l f a r e d e p a r t m e n t informed a p p e l l a n t s t h a t c e r t a i n improvements would have t o b e made i n t h e i r home o r t h e i r c h i l d would b e t a k e n from them permanently. improvements SRS r e q u e s t e d were: ( 2 ) a b s t e n t i o n from a l c o h o l ; The (1) F u l l - t i m e employment; ( 3 ) e f f e c t i v e budgeting t o s e e t h a t expenses f o r a l l n e c e s s i t i e s w e r e m e t ; ( 4 ) maintenance o f good housekeeping and p e r s o n a l c l e a n l i n e s s ; and ( 5 ) weekly menu p l a n n i n g and p r e p a r a t i o n of n u t r i t i o n a l l y balanced meals. A p p e l l a n t s were g i v e n t h r e e months t o make t h e s e improvements. On F e b r u a r y 23, 1977, SRS p e t i t i o n e d f o r permanent c u s t o d y . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on A p r i l 20, 1977. On May 3 , 1977, f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law w e r e e n t e r e d g r a n t i n g permanent c u s t o d y t o S R S . A p p e l l a n t s moved f o r a new h e a r i n g , which w a s d e n i e d . On J u l y 2 0 , 1977, amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law were e n t e r e d . The c u s t o d y award was unchanged i n t h e amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. T h i s a p p e a l t h e n ensued. Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e 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 by n o t appointing independent counsel f o r t h e c h i l d ? 2. Did t h e 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 d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t permanent p l a c e m e n t w i t h SRS was 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 ? I n i t s amended f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of i n d e p e n d e n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e minor c h i l d w a s u n n e c e s s a r y t o i n s u r e t h e development o f a n a d e q u a t e l y c o m p l e t e r e c o r d of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . Appellants argue t h e District C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s o f i n d i n g . T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l t o r e p r e s e n t a minor c h i l d i n dependency p r o c e e d i n g s i s n o t mandatory. The c o u r t "may" a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e c h i l d . S t u b b e n v . F l a t h e a d County Dept. of P u b l i c W e l f a r e , Mont . 556 P.2d 904, 33 St.Rep. 1082. (19761, The d e c i - s i o n i n S t u b b e n was b a s e d o n s e c t i o n 1 0 - 1 3 1 0 ( 1 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, which p r o v i d e s t h a t a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l f o r t h e c h i l d i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . On J u l y 8 , 1977, t h i s C o u r t i n t e r p r e t e d s e c t i o n 101 3 1 0 ( 1 2 ) , R.C.M. 1947, a g a i n . S t i l l r e f u s i n g t o make t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l f o r a minor c h i l d mandatory, w e h e l d t h a t where c u s t o d y i s i n s e r i o u s d i s p u t e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e c h i l d o r make a f i n d i n g s t a t i n g t h e r e a s o n s s u c h a p p o i n t m e n t was u n n e c e s s a r y . of t h e Guardianship of G u l l e t t e , (19771, I n t h e Matter Mont. I 566 P.2d 396, 34 St.Rep. 277. Appellants argue t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t h e r e were amended on J u l y 20, 1977, t o b r i n g t h i s c a s e i n t o conformity w i t h G u l l e t t e . T h a t may be s o , b u t w e f a i l t o see how t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t appointing counsel f o r t h e c h i l d . F i r s t , s i n c e t h i s c a s e was h e a r d and d e c i d e d p r i o r t o o u r d e c i s i o n i n G u l l e t t e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was n o t r e q u i r e d t o make any f i n d i n g on t h e appointment of c o u n s e l f o r t h e minor c h i l d . I t i s o n l y i n t h o s e c a s e s h e a r d and d e c i d e d a f t e r G u l l e t t e t h a t such a f i n d i n g i s necessary. Further, t h e r u l e i s t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t of c o u n s e l i s o n l y necess a r y when t h e c h i l d n e e d s a n a d v o c a t e t o r e p r e s e n t h i s position a s t o the i s s u e s i n dispute o r t o ensure the development of a n a d e q u a t e l y complete r e c o r d c o n c e r n i n g 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 . 0r.App. 601, 547 P.2d 175. present here. I n t h e Matter of D l (1976), 24 N e i t h e r of t h o s e s i t u a t i o n s a r e The minor c h i l d was t o o young t o have any p o s i t i o n on t h e i s s u e s and t h e r e c o r d of t h e h e a r i n g i s a d e q u a t e t o d e t e r m i n e 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 . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t appointing counsel f o r t h e c h i l d . Next, a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding permanent c u s t o d y t o SRS. They c l a i m they presented t h e c o u r t with a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o a permanent t a k i n g of t h e c h i l d from them. This a l t e r n a t i v e w a s t o have t h e c h i l d p l a c e d i n t h e j o i n t c u s t o d y of a p p e l - l a n t s and t h e c h i l d ' s g r a n d p a r e n t s , w i t h whom t h e y were l i v i n g a t t h e t i m e of t h e hearing. They a r g u e t h e l e g i s l a - t i v e i n t e n t i n s e c t i o n 10-1300, R.C.M. 1947, was t o p r e s e r v e t h e u n i t y and w e l f a r e o f t h e f a m i l y whenever p o s s i b l e . Thus, a p p e l l a n t s m a i n t a i n t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was c o n t r a r y t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , a s they presented the c o u r t with a n a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t c o u l d p r e s e r v e t h e u n i t y of t h e f a m i l y . W f i n d no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n e awarding permanent c u s t o d y t o SRS. I n determining t h e c u s t o d y i s s u e , t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d i s t h e p a r a mount c o n c e r n . I n t h e M a t t e r of Henderson, Mont. 329, 542 P.2d 1204. ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 This Court has s a i d : "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 c i r c u m s t a n c e s of e a c h case. The r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of d e c i d i n g c u s t o d y i s a d e l i c a t e o n e which i s lodged w i t h the d i s t r i c t court. The judge h e a r i n g o r a l testimony i n such a controversy has 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 o u g h t n o t t o b e d i s t u r b e d e x c e p t upon a c l e a r showing of a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . " Adoption o f B i e r y , ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 353, 3 5 6 , 522 P.2d 1377. Here, t h e r e h a s been no c l e a r showing of a n a b u s e of discretion. Our summary o f t h e f a c t s shows t h a t t h e c h i l d was n e g l e c t e d p r i o r t o t h e temporary c u s t o d y award t o SRS. Appellants admit they d i d n e g l e c t t h e c h i l d a t t h a t t i m e . Between t h e t i m e of t h e temporary c u s t o d y o r d e r and t h e h e a r i n g on permanent c u s t o d y , t h e e v i d e n c e shows t h a t a p p e l l a n t s had n o t made t h e improvements SRS r e q u e s t e d . The f a t h e r had e n t e r e d a n o t h e r a l c o h o l t r e a t m e n t program, b u t h e a g a i n f a i l e d t o f i n i s h i t . He testified that h e s t i l l d r a n k and had g o t t e n drunk s i n c e t h e c h i l d w a s removed from t h e home. The t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h e f a t h e r was working on h i s s t e p f a t h e r ' s f a r m . But, he t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e went t o work t h e r e on J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1977. Thus, t h e f a t h e r had n o t had f u l l employment v e r y l o n g p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g and t h e e v i d e n c e shows h e had changed j o b s 1 4 o r 1 5 t i m e s s i n c e a p p e l l a n t s w e r e m a r r i e d i n 1974. The e v i d e n c e r e v e a l s t h e mother s t i l l needed h e l p i n m a i n t a i n i n g a c l e a n house and p r e p a r i n g n u t r i t i o n a l m e a l s , even though s h e had been r e c e i v i n g s u c h h e l p from J u l y t o November, 1976 t h r o u g h SRS. F i n a l l y , t h e d o c t o r f o r t h e c h i l d informed t h e c o u r t , i n h i s r e p o r t , t h a t t h e c h i l d w a s e m o t i o n a l l y d e p r i v e d and h e would n o t recommend r e t u r n i n g t h e c h i l d t o t h e f a m i l y , a s t h e c h i l d was p r o g r e s s i n g i n t h e f o s t e r home. A l l this e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h e c h i l d was n e g l e c t e d and t h e improvements needed i n t h e f a m i l y home had n o t been met. S i n c e t h e proof shows t h i s minor c h i l d w a s n e g l e c t e d , It is i t would n o t be p o s s i b l e t o p r e s e r v e f a m i l y u n i t y . when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e o f proof t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y t o p r e s e r v e t h e u n i t y and w e l f a r e of t h e f a m i l y must p r e v a i l . D i v i s i o n of C h i l d W e l f a r e S e r v i c e s v . F i s h e r , Mont. 254, 545 P.2d 654. ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 T h e r e f o r e , t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarding permanent c u s t o d y t o SRS w a s p r o p e r . Family u n i t y need n o t be p r e s e r v e d a t t h e expense of t h e child's best interests. (1977) I Mont. In R e G., , Youths i n Need of C a r e , 570 P.2d 1 1 1 0 , 34 St.Rep. 1179. 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 . 4"nd b4)%Wt.&y Chief J u s t i c e W e 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.