LEHMAN v BILLMAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13810 I N THE SUPFEME COUIZT OF THE STATE OF M3NTANA 1978 P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vsBARNEY R. BILLMAN, ~efendant and Appellant. Appeal f m : District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Calton and Stephens, Billings, bbntana For Respondent: Anderson, Symes, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings, Montana Suhnitted on briefs: Decided: 3EP July 21, 1978 26 1978 J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s a p p e a l i s t a k e n from a n o r d e r i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 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 , Yellowstone County, whereby a p p e l l a n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e s u p p o r t moneys f o r h i s minor c h i l d and h i s v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s w e r e terminated. The c a u s e was s u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s t o t h i s C o u r t ; no o r a l argument w a s had. On A p r i l 26, 1974, t h e p a r t i e s Linda Lehman ( f o r m e r l y B i l l m a n ) and Barney Billman were d i v o r c e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t awarded c u s t o d y of t h e c o u p l e ' s o n l y c h i l d , J o s e p h R i c h a r d ( J o e y ) t o h i s mother, L i n d a , and o r d e r e d t h e f a t h e r , Barney, t o c o n t r i b u t e $100 p e r month toward s u p p o r t of t h e child. Barney 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 on September 3 0 , 1975, f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e , a s k i n g t h a t t h e amount of s u p p o r t money t o b e c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e c h i l d b e reduced by 50 p e r c e n t and t h a t v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s b e a f f o r d e d him. A h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r w a s postponed, p a r e n t l y b e c a u s e Barney f a i l e d t o a p p e a r . ap- On F e b r u a r y 11, 1976, Barney renewed h i s p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e c r e e i n r e s p e c t of v i s i t a t i o n , and a g a i n a p p a r e n t l y f a i l e d t o a p p e a r a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion. Seven months a f t e r Linda s o u g h t a r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r a g a i n s t him, Barney a g a i n p e t i t i o n e d on October 25, 1976, f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e , s e e k i n g (1) a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e amount o f c h i l d s u p p o r t i n which h e was i n a r r e a r s , ( 2 ) a n o r d e r t o compel t h e c h i l d Joey e n r o l l e d i n s c h o o l under t h e surname " B i l l m a n " , n o t Lehman, t h e name by which t h e c h i l d was known and had been e n r o l l e d , and ( 3 ) a n o r d e r e n j o i n i n g t h e mother from " p o i s o n i n g " t h e c h i l d ' s mind a g a i n s t Barney. A f t e r t h e November 4 , 1976, h e a r i n g on B a r n e y ' s p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n , of which a r e c o r d was made, Judge C. B. Sande i s s u e d t h e f i r s t f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r m o d i f y i n g t h e d e c r e e , d a t e d December 8 , 1976, by which h e d i d t h e following: S e t t h e amount which Barney was i n arrears i n h i s 1. c h i l d support obligation; 2. Reduced t h e amount Barney was t o c o n t r i b u t e toward t h e s u p p o r t of J o e y ; 3. S e t a s p e c i f i c t i m e f o r v i s i t a t i o n between Barney and J o e y ; 4 . Ordered t h e c h i l d t o b e e n r o l l e d i n s c h o o l under and go by t h e surname " B i l l m a n " , even though, a s t h e c o u r t acknowledged, "The c h i l d i s n o t r e c o g n i z e d by s c h o o l aut h o r i t i e s under t h e d e f e n d a n t f a t h e r ' s surname of illm man"; and 5. E n j o i n e d t h e mother from p o i s o n i n g t h e c h i l d ' s mind a g a i n s t Barney. Two f i l i n g s were made on December 1 3 , 1976, o n e , a motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and o r d e r , advanced by t h e m o t h e r ' s c o u n s e l , and t h e o t h e r a s t i p u l a t i o n r e g a r d i n g supervised v i s i t a t i o n . W i t h i n d a y s , on December 22, 1976, Barney 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 , s e e k i n g , i n t e r a l i a , c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d . On J a n u a r y 3 , 1977, Linda f i l e d a c r o s s - p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e d e c r e e t o e l i m i n a t e a l l of B a r n e y ' s visitation privileges. The f o l l o w i n g month, Judge Sande i s s u e d new f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r modifying t h e d e c r e e , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 , 1977. During t h e t i m e between t h e two o r d e r s , numerous i n chambers c o n f e r e n c e s and i n t e r v i e w s were conducted. Parti- c i p a n t s included t h e c o u r t , a t t o r n e y s f o r both p a r t i e s , t h e p a r t i e s t h e m s e l v e s , t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother, c o u r t s e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l , and t h e c h i l d . C e r t a i n of t h e r e c o r d i s s c a n t y , some i s e n t i r e l y a b s e n t , e x c e p t by r e f e r e n c e , b u t i t i s c l e a r t h a t Barney h a d , and l i k e l y may y e t h a v e , what i s e u p h e m i s t i c a l l y ref e r r e d t o a s a "problem w i t h d r i n k i n g " . During t h e c o u r s e of h i s m a r r i a g e t o L i n d a , Barney would o f t e n d r i n k and t h e n engage i n v i o l e n t and a b u s i v e b e h a v i o r , r a n g i n g from c a l l i n g L i n d a ' s young d a u g h t e r J o d y , who l i v e d w i t h t h e c o u p l e d u r i n g t h e i r m a r r i a g e , n a s t y names, t o throwing knickknacks and r u n n i n g o v e r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s t o y s , t o s t r i k i n g and a b u s i n g Linda i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e c h i l d r e n . T h a t be- h a v i o r e v e n t u a l l y prompted Linda t o s e e k a d i v o r c e from Barney. I n September, 1974, Linda was m a r r i e d t o Stephen R. Lehman, who h a s developed and m a i n t a i n s a 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 Joey. In contrast, during the four years s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e , Barney h a s had v e r y l i t t l e c o n t a c t w i t h Joey. I t a p p e a r s t h a t a l t h o u g h on o c c a s i o n , t o p r o t e c t t h e c h i l d , Linda r e f u s e d t o l e t Barney see him, Barney, o v e r extended p e r i o d s of t i m e , v o l u n t a r i l y neglected t o c o n t a c t t h e boy. Based on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g a r n e r e d from t h e c o n f e r e n c e s and i n t e r v i e w s and from t h e p r i o r h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t i s s u e d t h e second o r d e r , which i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s : 1. The d e f e n d a n t f a t h e r h a s had a s e r i o u s d r i n k i n g problem and w a s a poor husband and f a t h e r ; h e w i l l f u l l y f a i l e d t o pay c h i l d s u p p o r t and v o l u n t a r i l y n e g l e c t e d v i s i t a t i o n of h i s c h i l d ; 2 . Because o f B a r n e y ' s d r i n k i n g and t h e c h i l d ' s a t t i - t u d e toward t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h e mother a t t i m e s p r e v e n t e d visitation; 3 . J o e y d o e s n o t want c o n t a c t w i t h Barney, and v i s i t a - t i o n c a n b e accomplished o n l y by p h y s i c a l l y t a k i n g t h e c h i l d against his w i l l ; 4 . Forced v i s i t a t i o n would b e h a r m f u l , b o t h m e n t a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y , t o t h e c h i l d ; 5. The d e f e n d a n t i s u n a b l e t o p r o v i d e a s u i t a b l e home f o r J o e y , w h i l e Linda and h e r husband have p r o v i d e d a n e x c e l l e n t home and p a r e n t a l c a r e f o r him; 6 . The c h i l d l o o k s t o S t e p h e n R. Lehrnan a s h i s f a t h e r and a change i n c u s t o d y would be e x t r e m e l y harmful t o t h e child; 7. What s u p p o r t t h e d e f e n d a n t d o e s p r o v i d e i s n o t needed and i s a s o u r c e of c o n t i n u i n g c o n f l i c t between t h e p a r t i e s ; and 8. The p a r t i e s s o h a t e one a n o t h e r t h a t c o n t i n u e d c o n t a c t between them would r e s u l t i n harm t o t h e c h i l d . A f t e r making t h o s e f i n d i n g s and c o n s i d e r i n g 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 e c o u r t concluded and o r d e r e d t h a t B a r n e y ' s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n be t e r m i n a t e d and t h a t h e b e denied f u r t h e r v i s i t a t i o n with t h e c h i l d . On March 2 4 , 1977, n o t i c e of a p p e a l was f i l e d by Barney's attorney. A f t e r numerous d e l a y s on a p p e l l a n t ' s p a r t over a ten-to-eleven month p e r i o d , on J a n u a r y 20, 1978, t h i s C o u r t , o f i t s own motion, o r d e r e d t h e a p p e l l a n t t o show c a u s e why t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d n o t b e d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o f i l e a brief. A b r i e f was s u b s e q u e n t l y f i l e d on J a n u a r y 31, 1978. Although c o u n s e l f o r r e s p o n d e n t a r g u e s s t r o n g l y and persuasively f o r t h i s Court t o dismiss t h e i n s t a n t appeal b a s e d on a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e b o t h t o t i m e l y - a p p e a l and t o p u r s u e t h e a p p e a l w i t h some measure of d i l i g e n c e , w e r e s t o u r d e c i s i o n on t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t heed be p a i d t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . S e c t i o n s 48-332 and 48-337, 1947 (Supp. 1 9 7 7 ) . I t happens t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s d i l a - R.C.M. t o r i n e s s i n pursuing h i s appeal i s an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r which s u p p o r t s o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t 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 s e r v e d by u p h o l d i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s second o r d e r t e r m i n a t i n g b o t h B a r n e y ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e supp o r t moneys and h i s v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o modify a n o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s whenever m o d i f i c a t i o n would s e r v 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 . 337 ( 2 ) , X.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977) . S e c t i o n 48- By t h e e x p r e s s t e r m s of the s t a t u t e , the court i s required t o find t h a t "visitation would endanger s e r i o u s l y t h e c h i l d ' s p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l , moral, o r emotional h e a l t h . " The 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 " v i s i t a t i o n a t t h i s t i m e c a n b e accomplished o n l y by p h y s i c a l l y t a k i n g t h e boy a g a i n s t h i s w i l l and f o r c i n g t h e v i s i t a t i o n " and t h a t " e n f o r c e d v i s i t a t i o n would b e m e n t a l l y and e m o t i o n a l l y harmful t o t h e c h i l d . " Those f i n d i n g s w e r e based on i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h e in c o u r t d u r i n g a series of - camera c o n f e r e n c e s and i n t e r v i e w s , i n which a l l i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n s p a r t i c i p a t e d a t v a r i o u s t i m e s between t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e two f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r s . A p p e l l a n t c h a r g e s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o c a u s e a r e c o r d t o be made of t h e i n chambers i n t e r v i e w ( s ) w i t h t h e c h i l d . A p p e l l a n t com- p l a i n s of t h e l a c k o f s u c h r e c o r d , y e t h e , w i t h and t h r o u g h h i s counsel, agreed t o attempt t o informally resolve t h e problem of v i s i t a t i o n , and, t o t h a t e n d , a g r e e d t h a t o f f - t h e - r e c o r d c o n f e r e n c e s and i n t e r v i e w s were t o be h e l d . That s u c h agreement was made i s n o t d i s p u t e d by a p p e l l a n t ; f u r t h e r more, d i r e c t r e f e r e n c e t o i t i s made i n t h e s t a t e m e n t p r e f a tory t o the D i s t r i c t Court's findings, viz., "This matter h a v i n g come b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on opposing motions of t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e C o u r t having h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y t a k e n i n p r e v i o u s h e a r i n g s i n t h i s m a t t e r and h a v i n g met- chambers - in p u r s u a n t - agreement of c o u n s e l w i t h - p a r t i e s , t h e i r to - the c o u n s e l , t h e p a t e r n a l grandmother, t h e minor - - - e son of t h p a r t i e s , - - C o u r t S e r v i c e s p e r s o n n e l , who h a s i n v e s t i and t h e g a t e d and a s s i s t e d i n t h e m a t t e r , t h e C o u r t makes t h e f o l lowing FINDINGS O F FACT." (Emphasis added.) I n order t o determine i f t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d e r r i n t h i s r e g a r d , w e must i n q u i r e whether c o u n s e l may waive t h e r e q u i r e m e n t imposed by s e c t i o n 4 8 - 3 3 4 ( 1 ) , R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977) , t h a t a r e c o r d be made o f t h e c o u r t ' s i n t e r v i e w ( s ) of the child. Examination of a most r e c e n t d e c i s i o n , E a s t o n v . Easton (1978), St.Rep. Mont. -I - 574 P.2d 989, 992, 35 , 1 2 3 , 126, r e v e a l s t h a t i n d e e d c o u n s e l may s o waive, and s h o u l d he do s o , he may n o t l a t e r complain t h a t he was prejudiced thereby. I n Easton, t h e D i s t r i c t Court, pursuant t o agreement of c o u n s e l , r e q u i r e d no r e c o r d be made of a p a r t i c u l a r hearing. Remarking t h a t knows t h e t e r m ' w a i v e r ' "* * * Counsel s u r e l y i s generally defined a s a voluntary and i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h m e n t of a known r i g h t , c l a i m o r p r i v i l e g e " , Easton v. Easton, 992, 35 St.Rep. Mont. a t , 574 P.2d a t a t 126, t h i s Court took exception t o t h e o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t t h a t no r e c o r d was made of t h e hearing. W e likewise take exception i n t h e i n s t a n t case. A p p e l l a n t may n o t waive, v o l u n t a r i l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y , a known r i g h t - - h e r e , t h e r i g h t t o have made a r e c o r d of t h e court's - camera interview(s) of the child--and later in complain that the District Court erred in accomodating him. his specification of error is specious to a court of equity which considers that one's acquiescence in error takes away the right of objecting to it. Section 49-108, R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977); see Brannon v. Lewis Clark County (1963), & 143 Mont. 200, 208, 387 P.2d 706, 711. The District Court exercised the option made available to it under section 48-334 (I), R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977), and interviewed the child in chambers "to ascertain [his] wishes as to his custodian and as to visitation." Apparently the court allowed counsel for appellant and perhaps appellant himself to be present at the interview(s), in conformity with the discretion granted the court by that same statute. The court determined that the best interest of the child would be served by terminating Barney's visitation rights. We defer to that judgment, because the District Court has a superior advantage in determining these difficult problems. See Weber v. Weber (1978), Mont . 1 - 576 P.2d , 1102, 1104, 35 St.Rep. 309, 311-12, and cases cited therein. The Montana statutes are specific in their requirements, from setting forth how a custody or support proceeding shall be entitled, section 48-315(2), R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977), to demanding that, in the absence of written consent of the parties, there be a showing of changed circumstances to support a petition for modification of a decree in respect of support, section 48-330(1) (a), R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 19771, to mandabkg that an affidavit setting forth facts sup- porting the requested modification accompany papers seeking modification of a custody decree, section 48-340, R.C.M. 1947 (Supp. 1977). Counsel's failure to comply with these statutory requisites, a s i n the i n s t a n t case, is invitation t o e r r o n e o u s r u l i n g s and d e t e r m i n a t i o n s p r e j u d i c i a l b o t h t o t h e i r c l i e n t s ' r i g h t s and t o t h e s y s t e m o f j u s t i c e o f which they a r e guardians. Our r e f u s a l t o d e c i d e t h i s c a s e on p r o c e d u r a l g r o u n d s i s n o t t o be mistaken a s c l o s i n g our eyes t o t h e n e c e s s i t y o f complying w i t h s t a t u t o r y d i c t a t e s . A remand i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , however, would s e r v e b u t t o f u r t h e r d e l a y r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s m a t t e r and t h u s work a g a i n s t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e minor c h i l d . Because it i s 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 which i s made t h e ground o f o u r d e c i s i o n , w e a l l o w t o s t a n d t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r more l a t e l y i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W e Concur: #.%%4 Chief J u s t i c e

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.