STATE EX REL C M J v DISTRICT CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14285 I N THE SUPREME (3IUKt' OF THE S T m OF IWNTANA 1978 THE STATE aF I'KINTANA, ex rel. C.M.J., Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFTHESTATEOFMONTANA, I N A N D F O R T H E C O U N I Y O F MISSOULA, THE HON. E. GARDNER BROWNLEE, JUDGE THEREQF, Respondent. ORIGINAL PmcEEDm: C o u n s e l of Record: For R e l a t o r : Klaus S i t t e , L e g a l Services, Missoula, bbntana For R e s p o r d e n t : Fbbert Deschamps, 1 1 C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , Missoula, mntana 1, Karen 'IWmend, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , Missoula, mntana Dennis Lind, Missoula, bbntana Filed : !?t\'t EB 3 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. R e l a t o r h a s p e t i t i o n e d t h i s C o u r t f o r a w r i t of s u p e r visory control o r other appropriate w r i t directing the D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Missoula County, t h e Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, t o g r a n t v i s i t a t i o n p r i v i l e g e s w i t h t h e minor c h i l d J.L.B. a d o p t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s of J.L.B. and t o s t a y pending outcome of r e l a t o r ' s a p p e a l of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s t e r m i n a t i o n of C . M . J . ' s cus- t o d y of t h e c h i l d . On October 27, 1977, t h e Department of S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS), by and t h r o u g h t h e County A t t o r n e y of Missoula County, f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h e r e , s e e k i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e minor c h i l d J.L.B. i s a y o u t h i n need of c a r e and t h a t permanent c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d and a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s e n t t o h e r a d o p t i o n b e g r a n t e d SRS. A h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n extended o v e r f o u r d a y s , F e b r u a r y 23 and 27, and March 6 and 7 , 1978. Judge Brownlee, on March 29, 1978, i s s u e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , and a judgment awarding permanent c u s t o d y of J . L . B . t o SRS and a u t h o r i z i n g t h e Department t o a r r a n g e and c o n s e n t t o h e r adoption. R e l a t o r f i l e d n o t i c e of a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n a t i o n s on A p r i l 1 0 , 1978, and a t t h e same t i m e , moved f o r , i n t e r a l i a , " V i s i t a t i o n Pending Appeal" and " S t a y of Adoptive P r o c e e d i n g s Pending Appeal". Those m o t i o n s were e n t e r t a i n e d a t h e a r i n g o n A p r i l 1 3 , 1978, and were d e n i e d . I n h e r p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l , r e l a t o r a s k s , i n e f f e c t , t h a t t h i s C o u r t now g r a n t t h e motions which w e r e d e n i e d below. I n s u p p o r t of t h e p e t i t i o n , s h e a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e i s no a d e q u a t e remedy by a p p e a l and t h a t , u n l e s s r e l i e f i s g r a n t e d by i s s u a n c e of a n a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t , t h e c h i l d would s u f f e r d e t r i m e n t . She c l a i m s t h a t h e r m o t i o n s a r e d e s i g n e d t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e s t a t u s quo be m a i n t a i n e d , and c o n t e n d s t h a t o n l y when s e r i o u s e v i l t h r e a t e n s t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d s h o u l d t h e r e l i e f s h e r e q u e s t s b e d e n i e d . Reminding u s t h a t i t i s t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d which g u i d e s u s i n c h i l d c u s t o d y m a t t e r s , I n r e J . J . S . Mont. , 577 P.2d 378, 381, 35 St.Rep. (1978), 394, 397, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n , c o u n s e l f o r SRS c o n t e n d t h a t , even w e r e i t p o s s i b l e t o p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s quo h e r e , t h a t i t s e l f would b e h a r m f u l t o t h e c h i l d . Of c o n s i d e r a b l e s i g n i f i c a n c e i s t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m of t h e c h i l d l i k e w i s e c o n t e n d s t h a t p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e s t a t u s child. quo would be h a r m f u l t o t h e I n h i s b r i e f amicus c u r i a e , he u r g e s t h a t w e deny t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d and t h u s , i n e f f e c t , uphold t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , whose d i s c r e t i o n h a s n o t been shown t o have been abused. W r i t s of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l a r e i s s u e d i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s of a n emergency n a t u r e , making c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a c a u s e of a c t i o n o r r i g h t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t s and due a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t a n i n a d e q u a t e remedy, o r i n t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s when s u p e r v i s i o n of a t r i a l c o u r t , o t h e r t h a n by a p p e a l , i s deemed necessary o r proper. Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M0nt.R.App.Civ.P. Phrased o t h e r w i s e , a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l w i l l i s s u e i n t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which t h e f a c t s show t h a t a p a r t y h a s no p l a i n , speedy o r a d e q u a t e remedy a t law, i n which t h e r e i s no r i g h t of a p p e a l from a D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r , o r i n which t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s s o abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n a s t o j u s t i f y i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h i s C o u r t . S t a t e e x r e l . Woodahl v . D i s - t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 6 Mont. 31, 38-39, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . 530 P.2d 780, 785, Too, a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i s properly issued t o prevent a p a r t y ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n needless l i t i g a t i o n . S t a t e ex r e l . B u t t r e y Foods, I n c . v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 148 Mont. 350, 354, 420 P.2d 845, 847. I n a c a s e such a s t h i s , p e t i t i o n e r , i n o r d e r t o p r e v a i l , must show t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , which h a s a s u p e r i o r adv a n t a g e i n r u l i n g on such m a t t e r s , c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e See I n re Adoption of B i e r y ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 353, tion. 357, 522 P.2d 1377, 1379. R e l a t o r h a s f a i l e d t o show t h a t 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 by denying h e r motion f o r v i s i t a t i o n pending outcome of t h e a p p e a l ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , h e r p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t t o allow such v i s i t a t i o n i s denied. The ~ i s t r i c t o u r t , however, e r r e d i n denying t h e motion C t o s t a y t h e a d o p t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s pending t h e outcome of t h e appeal. T h i s C o u r t i s empowered t o i s s u e a w r i t i n a i d of a n a p p e a l which would o t h e r w i s e be i n e f f e c t u a l . See B e n n e t t v. Dowdall ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 Mont. 11, 1 3 , 482 P.2d 572, 573. In t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , r e l a t o r ' s a p p e a l would be i n e f f e c t u a l i f t h e c h i l d J.L.B. proceedings. were a d o p t e d d u r i n g t h e pendency of t h e A w r i t thus w i l l issue directing the D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o s t a y p r o c e e d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e a d o p t i o n of J . L . B . pending outcome of t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t . P e t i t i o n f o r r e l i e f g r a n t e d i n p a r t and d e n i e d i n p a r t . 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.