WEBER v WEBER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13925 I N T E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A H F O T N 1978 BEULAH MAY WEBER, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vsJACK L . WEBER, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t Boyd, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: B e n n e t t a n d B e n n e t t , Bozeman, Montana Lyman H. B e n n e t t , I11 a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondent : M a u r i c e M a f f e i a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: Filed: W R * ,. -I.- J a n u a r y 3 1 , 1978 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 appeal from a judgment and order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Deer Lodge County, entered June 8 , 1977, f i n d i n g defendant Jack Weber delinquent i n payment of c h i l d support and determining he was n o t e n t i t l e d t o modification of t h e decree of custody entered on November 15, 1972, with r e s p e c t t o t h e two minor c h i l d r e n of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h i s a c t i o n . The period of time r e l e v a n t t o t h i s appeal commenced i n t h e l a t e s p r i n g and e a r l y summer of 1976, when p l a i n t i f f mother contacted defendant f a t h e r f o r t h e purpose of requesting him t o c a r e f o r t h e minor c h i l d r e n f o r t h e summer months of 1976. Following t h e conversation defendant t r a v e l e d t o t h e home of p l a i n t i f f , acquired t h e c h i l d r e n and returned t o h i s home i n Belgrade f o r t h e purpose of caring f o r t h e c h i l d r e n during t h e summer months. I n t h e f a l l 1976, defendant returned t h e c h i l d r e n t o plaintiff. A discussion between t h e p a r t i e s took p l a c e a s t o whether defendant could maintain t h e temporary custody of t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e purpose of allowing t h e c h i l d r e n t o a t t e n d school i n Belgrade. Following t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , p l a i n t i f f agreed t o allow defendant t o maintain the custody of t h e minor son, John, t o allow him t o a t t e n d school i n Belgrade. Defendant t h e r e a f t e r returned t o h i s home and e n r o l l e d h i s son i n t h e Belgrade school system. Subsequently defendant was advised by h i s s i s t e r - i n - l a w , Dorothy Weber, t h a t p l a i n t i f f was bringing t h e minor daughter Brenda eo G a l l a t i n Gateway f o r the purpose of r e s i d i n g with defendant' s s i s t e r - i n - l a w and b r o t h e r . Thereupon defendant went t o t h e home of h i s s i s t e r - i n - l a w and b r o t h e r and took h i s daughter with him t o Belgrade and e n r o l l e d h e r i n t h e Belgrade school system, without t h e permission of h i s ex-wife. O September 26, 1976, p l a i n t i f f returned t o G a l l a t i n n Gateway t o v i s i t with h e r minor daughter a t which time she was advised t h e c h i l d was r e s i d i n g with defendant. She then went t o defendant's home i n Belgrade t o g e t h e r daughter. Following an a l t e r c a t i o n which occurred on September 26 a t t h e residence of defendant, a motion f o r temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , supported by a f f i d a v i t , was f i l e d by p l a i n t i f f and was followed by a temporary o r d e r and o r d e r t o show cause issued by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A f t e r t h e issuance of t h e o r d e r t o show cause defendant surrendered t h e c h i l d r e n t o p l a i n t i f f . These i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review: 1 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o modify t h e custody degree entered i n November 1972, with r e s p e c t t o t h e two minor c h i l d r e n of t h e p a r t i e s ? 2) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n determining delinquencies i n c h i l d support without allowing c r e d i t t o defendant f o r house r e p a i r s , g r o c e r i e s purchased, and c l o t h i n g purchased f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ? I t i s t h e p o s i t i o n of defendant t h a t t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o modify t h e custody with r e s p e c t t o both c h i l d r e n . The b a s i s f o r t h e modification i s d i f f e r e n t f o r each c h i l d . Section 48-339, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n p a r t : "(2) The c o u r t s h a l l n o t modify a p r i o r custody decree unless i t f i n d s , upon t h e b a s i s of f a c t s t h a t have a r i s e n s i n c e t h e p r i o r decree o r t h a t were unknown t o t h e c o u r t a t t h e time of e n t r y of t h e p r i o r decree, t h a t a change has occurred i n t h e circumstances of t h e c h i l d o r h i s custodian, and t h a t t h e modification i s necessary t o serve t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . J I n applying t h e s e standards the c o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n t h e custodian appointed pursuant t o t h e p r i o r decree unless: "(b) The c h i l d has been i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e family of t h e p e t i t i o n e r with consent of t h e custodian * * *." Defendant argues t h a t i n t h e case of h i s minor son, John, i n t e g r a t i o n took p l a c e with t h e consent of p l a i n t i f f . The record i s n o t c l e a r a s t o t h e arrangement concerning how long t h e son was t o s t a y with t h e f a t h e r , b u t t h e f a t h e r d i d e n t e r t h e son i n t h e Belgrade school system f o r t h e year 1976-1977. I t i s apparent from t h e record t h a t when defendant was allowed t o take t h e minor son f o r t h e school year 1976-1977, t h a t John was n o t i n t e g r a t e d i n t o defendant f a t h e r ' s family because a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order was f i l e d on October 1, 1976 and t h e custody of t h e son returned t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . The son was only i n t h e custody of t h e defendant from e a r l y summer 1976 t o October 1, 1976. There i s no evidence from which t h e c o u r t could determine, a s required by s e c t i o n 48-339(2), R.C.M. 1947, t h a t a change has occurred i n t h e circumstances of t h e c h i l d John, o r h i s custodian, which r e q u i r e s a modification t o s e r v e h i s b e s t interests. This Court has long r e l i e d upon t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n custody matters. Mont . , I n Brooks v. Brooks, 556 P.2d 901, 33 S t . Rep. 1114, 1116, t h e Court stated: "This Court has long followed t h e r u l e t h a t unless t h e r e i s a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a d e c i s i o n on custody w i l l n o t be overruled on appeal. Love v. Love, 106 Mont. 303, 533 P.2d 280; Gilmore v. Gilmore, 166 Mont.47, 530 P.2d 480; Anderson v. Anderson, 145 Mont. 244, 400 P.2d 632. I n t h e s e cases t h i s Court has committed i t s e l f t o t h e view t h a t t h e welfare of t h e c h i l d i s t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n awarding custody and t h a t i t must of n e c e s s i t y , be l e f t l a r g e l y t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge. He hears t h e testimony, s e e s t h e witnesses' demeanor and has a s u p e r i o r advantage i n determining those d i f f i c u l t problems .'' W can f i n d no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e e D i s t r i c t Court regarding t h e custody of John, t h e minor son. I n regard t o t h e minor daughter Brenda, defendant asks t h i s Court t o look t o s e c t i o n 48-339(2)(c), R.C.M. 1947, which s t a t e s t h a t i n applying i t s standards t h e c o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n t h e custodian appointed pursuant t o t h e p r i o r decree u n l e s s : " ( c ) t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment endangers s e r i o u s l y h i s p h y s i c a l , mental,moral, o r emotional h e a l t h , and t h e harm l i k e l y t o be caused by a change of environment i s outweighed by i t s advant a g e s t o him." I t i s t h e p o s i t i o n of defendant t h a t t h e record preponderates i n favor of modification of custody based upon s e c t i o n 48-339(2)(c). From t h e record it i s c l e a r Brenda was .placed i n t h e custody of defendant f o r t h e summer 1976. A f t e r p l a i n t i f f returned from r e c e i v i n g medical treatment i n C a l i f o r n i a , she took Brenda with h e r t o h e r home i n Anaconda. T h e r e a f t e r , she, a s t h e custodian of t h e c h i l d , placed h e r temporarily i n t h e home of h e r former brother-in-law, Sam Weber. Defendant without t h e consent of p l a i n t i f f took Brenda t o h i s own home and would not r e t u r n h e r custody t o p l a i n t i f f , u n t i l t h e c o u r t o r d e r required him t o do so. W e f i n d no change i n t h e circumstances of p l a i n t i f f mother which would j u s t i f y a modification of t h e decree a s it p e r t a i n s t o t h e custody of t h e minor daughter Brenda. The welfare and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d a r e t h e primary concern of t h e c o u r t and even though t h e r e have been s u b s t a n t i a l changes i n t h e mother's h e a l t h , t h i s Court w i l l n o t modify t h e o r d e r u n l e s s t h e welfare of t h e c h i l d w i l l be promoted. Plaintiff t e s t i f i e d she has no present h e a l t h problems which would i n t e r f e r e with h e r d u t i e s i n c a r i n g f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . Defendant has f a i l e d t o produce any evidence upon which a modification of custody could be based. The D i s t r i c t Court a s t r i e r of t h e f a c t s , had t h e opportunity t o observe t h e p a r t i e s , had t h e b e n e f i t of t h e r e p o r t s of t h e welfare departments and found i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r modific a t i o n of t h e decree a s i t p e r t a i n s t o t h e custody of t h e two minor c h i l d r e n . This Court w i l l n o t d i s t u r b t h a t r u l i n g . Also, i t i s defendant's p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o recognize o t h e r c o n t r i b u t i o n s made by him toward t h e support of h i s c h i l d r e n i n determining t h a t defendant was delinquent i n payment of c h i l d support. Haaby v. Haaby, (1974), 165 Mont. 475, 478, 529 P.2d 1387. Here, defendant f a t h e r has contributed t o t h e support of h i s minor c h i l d r e n i n ways o t h e r than t h e payment of c h i l d support. It i s uncontradicted t h a t he (1) bought g r o c e r i e s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ; (2) bought c l o t h e s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ; ( 3 ) r e p a i r e d t h e motor i n t h e furnace a t t h e mother's home; and (4) s k i r t e d t h e t r a i l e r home of t h e mother. A l l of these c o n t r i b u t i o n s enhance t h e welfare of t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t a r e t h i n g s customarily performed by a f a t h e r i n a d d i t i o n t o support payments. F u r t h e r , t h e problem of g i v i n g t h e defendant f a t h e r c r e d i t f o r doing t h e s e things i s t h a t nowhere i n t h e record does defendant o f f e r testimony a s t o t h e amount he spent f o r g r o c e r i e s , c l o t h i n g and r e p a i r s . The D i s t r i c t Court had no way of knowing whether he c o n t r i b u t e d , i n kind, an amount equal t o t h e delinquency i n t h e support payments. Therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t Court was n o t i n e r r o r i n holding t h a t defendant was delinquent i n h i s c h i l d ' s u p p o r t payments. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. f F Justice W Concur: e - - Chief stic ice

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.