MORRELL v GIESICK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 79-58 IN THE SURPEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 CARRIE M. MORRELL, previously known as CARRIE M. GIESICK, Petitioner and Appellant, ROBERT LEE GIESICK, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Sixteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Rosebud. Honorable A. B. Martin, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Phyllis A. Bock, argued, Montana Legal Services, Miles City, Montana For Respondent : John S Forsythe argued, Forsyth, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: -- hffiy 14 13m April 15, 1980 MY14 M r . 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. C a r r i e M. M o r r e l l a p p e a l s from a summary judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of R o b e r t Lee G i e s i c k . The judgment, e n t e r e d by t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t , S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , t Rosebud County, p r e c l u d e d M o r r e l l from c h a l l e n g i n g G i e s i c k ' s c u s t o d y of M o r r e l l ' s c h i l d , Sandy J o e G i e s i c k . Sandy J o e w a s b o r n on J u l y 21, 1974. Morrell i s l i s t e d on Sandy J o e ' s b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e as t h e mother b u t no f a t h e r i s named. Sandy J o e ' s surname o n t h e b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e was B a e r t s c h , M o r r e l l ' s maiden name. According t o G i e s i c k , h e and M o r r e l l were l i v i n g t o g e t h e r and h a v i n g s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e a t t h e t i m e Sandy J o e was c o n c e i v e d . M o r r e l l , how- e v e r , m a i n t a i n s s h e had n o t even m e t G i e s i c k a t t h e t i m e Sandy J o e w a s c o n c e i v e d and M o r r e l l was d a t i n g and h a v i n g s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h Darrell C a n f i e l d . C a n f i e l d d i d c o n t r i b u t e $360 towards t h e m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Sandy J o e ' s d e l i v e r y . On Thanksgiving 1974, M o r r e l l t o l d G i e s i c k he was n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Morrell t o l d Giesick t h i s again i n J u l y 1975 and r e p e a t e d i t numerous t i m e s t h e r e a f t e r . I n December 1974, M o r r e l l and G i e s i c k were m a r r i e d i n S h e r i d a n , Wyoming. G i e s i c k took Sandy J o e i n t o h i s home, o p e n l y h e l d h e r o u t a s h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d and a l l o w e d h e r t o use h i s surnane. A t some p o i n t , M o r r e l l s i g n e d a "Consent To Custody And G u a r d i a n s h i p " t r a n s f e r r i n g Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l t o M o r r e l l ' s p a r e n t s , George and Dorothy B a e r t s c h . In November 1975, M o r r e l l and G i e s i c k j o i n t l y p e t i t i o n e d f o r a w r i t of habeas c o r p u s t o s e c u r e Sandy J o e ' s r e t u r n from Morrell's parents. The p e t i t i o n r e c i t e d t h a t M o r r e l l and ~ i e s i c k e r e Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . w Subsequently, M o r r e l l ' s p a r e n t s v o l u n t a r i l y r e t u r n e d Sandy J o e , and t h e p e t i t i o n was d i s m i s s e d . M o r r e l l and G i e s i c k s e p a r a t e d s e v e r a l t i m e s d u r i n g t h e i r marriage. The l a s t s e p a r a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n May 1976, when M o r r e l l took t h e c h i l d r e n , Sandy J o e and A y Marie m I n l a t e December 1976, t h e c h i l d r e n G i e s i c k , t o Oklahoma. were r e t u r n e d t o Montana and p u t i n t o G i e s i c k ' s c u s t o d y . The c h i l d r e n have l i v e d i n Montana w i t h G i e s i c k and h i s second w i f e s i n c e t h a t t i m e . On March 24, 1977, G i e s i c k o b t a i n e d a d i s s o l u t i o n o f h i s m a r r i a g e w i t h M o r r e l l i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Rosebud County. M o r r e l l was s e r v e d by p u b l i c a t i o n . G i e s i c k was g i v e n c u s t o d y o f Sandy J o e and A y Marie under t h e d e f a u l t m judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . No i s s u e h a s been r a i s e d here regarding t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e marriage d i s s o l u tion itself. On March 29, 1979, M o r r e l l f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e c h i l d custody provision i n t h e d e f a u l t marriage d i s s o l u t i o n decree. The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d G i e s i c k p o s s i b l y committed a f r a u d upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t by a l l e g i n g i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n p e t i t i o n t h a t Sandy J o e was " b o r n of t h e m a r riage." The p e t i t i o n a l s o a l l e g e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award G i e s i c k c u s t o d y of Sandy J o e s i n c e M o r r e l l w a s s e r v e d by p u b l i c a t i o n . G i e s i c k moved f o r summary judgment which was g r a n t e d on September 26, 1979. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d t h e d i s s o l u t i o n c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o award G i e s i c k c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were i n Montana a t t h e t i m e t h e d i s s o l u t i o n p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d and t h e r e was no i r r e g u l a r i t y i n service of p r o c e s s . Next, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d M o r r e l l was b a r r e d by e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and res j u d i c a t a from c h a l lenging t h e d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e ' s custody provision. Upon a p p e a l , M o r r e l l c h a l l e n g e s t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e summary judgment i t s e l f a s w e l l a s t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y . W e affirm t h e D i s t r i c t Court. According t o M o r r e l l , g e n u i n e issdrs o f m a t e r i a l f a c t remain u n r e s o l v e d , and G i e s i c k was n o t e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of law. The c o n t e n t i o n i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . M o r r e l l a d m i t s G i e s i c k t o o k Sandy J o e i n t o h i s home, o p e n l y h e l d h e r o u t a s h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d , and a l l o w e d h e r t o u s e h i s surname. Morrell a l s o admits her r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e 1975 p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of habeas c o r p u s t h a t G i e s i c k i s Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . Moreover, M o r r e l l a d m i t s s h e has acquiesced f o r almost f i v e y e a r s i n Giesick's being Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . C e r t a i n l y , G i e s t c k . h a s changed h i s p o s i t i o n i n r e l i a n c e on M o r r e l l ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and long acquiescence. T h e r e f o r e , having a d m i t t e d t h e n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t s , M o r r e l l i s e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . M o r r e l l i s a l s o b a r r e d by l a c h e s from a s s e r t i n g G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l f a t h e r . M o r r e l l c l a i m s t o have known f o r o v e r f i v e y e a r s t h a t G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s natural father. Y e t , Morrell waited f o r over t h r e e y e a r s a f t e r G i e s i c k was awarded Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y t o b r i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r modification. During t h i s p e r i o d , Sandy J o e h a s undoubtedly become a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of t h e ~ i e s i c k family. F i n a l l y , M o r r e l l i s b a r r e d by res j u d i c a t a from asserti n g t h a t G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t . The r e c o r d d e m o n s t r a t e s M o r r e l l was v a l i d l y s e r v e d by p u b l i c a - t i o n and i n f a c t had n o t i c e of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . Thus, M o r r e l l had h e r o p p o r t u n i t y t o c h a l l e n g e G i e s i c k ' s p a t e r n i t y of Sandy J o e , y e t s h e f a i l e d t o a p p e a r . M o r r e l l n e x t c o n t e n d s Sandy J o e ' s c u s t o d y c o u l d n o t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y be determined without personal j u r i s d i c t i o n over Morrell. M o r r e l l a s s e r t s h e r due p r o c e s s r i g h t s have been v i o l a t e d . T h i s c o n t e n t i o n a l s o h a s no m e r i t . M o r r e l l ' s c o n t e n t i o n s a r e based on a m i s r e a d i n g of May v . Anderson ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. While t h e language of t h i s o p i n i o n i s v e r y b r o a d , 1221. most c o u r t s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e d e c i s i o n have l i m i t e d t h e h o l d i n g t o where b o t h t h e c h i l d and t h e d e f e n d i n g p a r e n t a r e n o t i n t h e rendering s t a t e a t t h e t i m e of t h e custody proceeding. S e e , e - g . , Worland v . Worland (N.M. 1 9 7 6 ) , 551 P.2d 981, and Bush v . Bush (Okl. 1 9 5 6 ) , 299 P.2d 155. The Supreme C o u r t d e c i s i o n i t s e l f i n d i c a t e s t h i s i s t h e p r o p e r interpretation. May v. Anderson, s u p r a , 345 U.S. a t 534 n. 8. L i m i t i n g t h e e f f e c t of t h e M a y d e c i s i o n i n t h i s manner a l s o makes good s e n s e . O t h e r w i s e , t h e c o n v e n i e n c e of a l e a v e - t a k i n g p a r e n t i s p l a c e d above t h e w e l f a r e of t h e child. The s i t u a t i o n becomes such t h a t one s t a t e c a n n o t b i n d t h e f a t h e r and a n o t h e r s t a t e c a n n o t b i n d t h e mother. P o s s e s s i o n becomes n o t merely n i n e - t e n t h s o f t h e law b u t a l l o f t h e law. S e l f - h e l p becomes t h e u l t i m a t e remedy, and t h e l a w of c u s t o d y i s r e d u c e d t o a r u l e o f s e i z e and r u n . B a t c h e l o r v . F u l c h e r (Ky. 1 9 6 7 ) , 415 S.W.2d (Osborne, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) 828, 832-33 . Morrell f i n a l l y contends t h e custody provision i n t h e d i s s o l u t i o n d e c r e e i s v o i d s i n c e Sandy J o e i s n o t G i e s i c k ' s n a t u r a l c h i l d and t h e r e h a s n o t been a p r o p e r showing of c h i l d a b u s e , n e g l e c t o r dependency. A s n o t e d above, ~ o r r e l l i s b a r r e d by e s t o p p e l , l a c h e s and res j u d i c a t a from asserti n g G i e s i c k i s n o t Sandy J o e ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t . Having found no e r r o r , t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: 7!~& w 4 $, 9 Chief J u s t i c e ~!@'9dwu, Justices 0
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.
