MARRIAGE OF KOROL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 79-15 IN THE SUPIZEME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: SZCZEPAN KOROL, Petitioner and Appellant, vs . GWENDOLYN LOCKE KOROL, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and For the County of Cascade. Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Cameron Ferguson argued, Great Falls,Montana For Respondent : Barry T. Olson argued, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: April 17, 1980 July 22, 1980 Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of Appellant h i s custody Szczepan Korol sought t h e r e t u r n of h i s through a p e t i t i o n for habeas corpus. the Court. son t o The C a s c a d e County D i s t r i c t Court denied h i s p e t i t i o n and he a p p e a l s . S z c z e p a n a n d Gwen K o r o l , the natural parents, d i v o r c e i n Cascade County i n October, awarded t h e custody of 1977. I n March, their child, Mr. 1976. obtained a K o r o l was S t e p h e n , who w a s b o r n i n M a y , 1 9 7 8 , Gwen K o r o l a n d h e r m o t h e r , V e r n a L o c k e , went t o P e n n s y l v a n i a and brought the c h i l d back t o Great F a l l s . There i s c o n f l i c t i n g testimony as t o whether t h e p a r t i e s had a g r e e d t o t r a n s f e r c u s t o d y o r w h e t h e r a m e r e v i s i t was Gwen K o r o l g a v e M r . p r o v i s i o n s of Korol a s t i p u l a t i o n t o modify the divorce decree, but he did not intended. the custody sign it a t t h a t time and has not signed it t o t h i s date. It appears s h o r t p e r i o d of that t h e c h i l d r e s i d e d w i t h Gwen K o r o l t i m e and when s h e became A p r i l 1978, Richard and Verna Locke, c a l custody. ill and l o s t h e r job Gwen's parents, Szczepan Korol r e q u e s t e d t h e r e t u r n of a f t e r l e a r n i n g i n e a r l y September, t h e physical custody of On S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , Court f o r custody of 1978, for a that in took physiStephen t h e c h i l d was in the grandparents. 1978, t h e Lockes p e t i t i o n e d the child. The D i s t r i c t the District C o u r t a w a r d e d tem- p o r a r y c u s t o d y t o t h e Lockes and i s s u e d a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r which r e s t r a i n e d Szczepan Korol from removing t h e c h i l d o r d i s t u r b i n g t h e Lockes. On O c t o b e r 2 4 , 1978, Mr. Korol filed a m o t i o n t o quash t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and p e t i t i o n e d for a writ of habeas corpus. t i o n o n November 1 4 , 1 9 7 8 . d i s m i s s e d because of A h e a r i n g was h e l d upon t h e p e t i - The t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o r d e r was the grandparent's t h e a f f i d a v i t p r a c t i c e p r o v i s i o n s of failure t o cornp1,y w i t h s e c t i o n 48-340, now c o d i f i e d i n a m e n d e d f o r m i n s e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 2 0 , R.C.M. MCA. 1947, The o n l y i s s u e p r e s e n t e d w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e h a b e a s t i o n w a s who w a s e n t i t l e d t o c u s t o d y o f corpus peti- Stephen as between t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r Szczepan Korol and t h e m a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . Following the hearing, the D i s t r i c t Court issued an order o n November 1 5 , 1 9 7 8 , which q u a s h e d t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g order, but custody of t h e grandparents were once a g a i n g i v e n temporary Stephen. The p e t i t i o n f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f taken under advisement. o r d e r which found: On J u l y 9 , 1979, the D i s t r i c t t h a t a habeas corpus proceeding a p p r o p r i a t e t o determine whether custody of changed; that the Court entered an is a minor should be f a t h e r agreed t o s u r r e n d e r custody of c h i l d t o t h e mother i n March, was the 1978; t h a t t h e f a t h e r agreed t o a m o d i f i c a t i o n t o change t h e custody from t h e c u s t o d i a n t o t h e noncustodian, the mother; environment w i l l b e t t e r that the custody of t h a t the minor c h i l d ' s present s e r v e h i s w e l f a r e and b e s t interest; t h e minor c h i l d should be "assigned" mother u n t i l f u r t h e r order; and t h a t t h e f a t h e r c i a l l y a b l e t o c o n t r i b u t e $100 p e r month child reaches majority. to the is finan- i n support u n t i l the The p e t i t i o n f o r h a b e a s c o r p u s was dismissed and custody assigned t o t h e mother. The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d on a p p e a l : ( 1 ) Whether t h e d e n i a l of f o r habeas corpus is appealable; the natural father's petition and ( 2 ) Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n awarding custody t o t h e n a t u r a l mother, The r e s p o n d e n t Court's strenuously contends t h a t the D i s t r i c t order denying a w r i t The b a s i s of grandparents' and t h a t t h e c o u r t merely awarded a n o t h e r remedy e x i s t s s i n c e t h e p e t i t i o n f o r modification is s t i l l pending. Respondent a l s o analogizes of of habeas corpus is not appealable. t h i s contention is that temporary r e l i e f a nonpetitioning party. a w r i t of habeas the present situation t o the seeking corpus i n a criminal case i n s t a t i n g that s o l e i s s u e i s t h e l e g a l i t y of restraint, appealable. I n reviewing the D i s t r i c t Court's and it is t h e r e f o r not f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s we f i n d t h a t t h e c o u r t p u r p o r t e d the t o make a f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a result of custody. I n addition, s e c t i o n 48-339, no p e t i t i o n i s p e n d i n g a s 1947. R.C.M. Although was amended by t h e 1 9 7 9 l e g i s l a t u r e i t was f o l l o w i n g form throughout this section in effect in the the D i s t r i c t Court proceedings. " ( 1 ) No m o t i o n t o m o d i f y a c u s t o d y d e c r e e may b e made e a r l i e r t h a n two ( 2 ) y e a r s a f t e r i t s d a t e , u n l e s s t h e c o u r t p e r m i t s it t o b e made on t h e to b a s i s of a f f i d a v i t s t h a t t h e r e i s r e a s o n b e l i e v e t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t e n v i r o n m e n t may e n d a n g e r s e r i o u s l y his p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l , m o r a l , ( ~ m ~ h a s i s ded.) ad o r emotional health." T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l and r e q u i r e s D i s t r i c t Court t o find t h a t a motion f o r a change of t h e e n t r y of M o n t . -8 the c h i l d is s e r i o u s l y endangered i f c u s t o d y i s b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s of a divorce decree. S t r o u f v. 5 7 8 P.2d , Mont. 746, 5 7 4 P.2d 1 0 0 4 ; 35 St.Rep. 35 St.Rep. Strouf 626; Olson v. 1 7 4 Mont. 5 3 3 , 5 7 1 P.2d 1 1 4 2 ; G i a n o t t i v. (1977), 1 7 4 Mont. 209, 929. 5 6 9 P.2d (19781, Olson (1978), 1 7 5 ; S c h i e l e v. (19771, e x c e p t i o n t o t h e two-year the Sager McCracken Olson a l s o reveals t h a t l i m i t a t i o n i s n o t t o be the liberally applied. I n o u r p r e s e n t c a s e t h e m o t i o n t o m o d i f y c u s t o d y was brought w i t h i n t h e two-year limitation, failed t o find that the child's and t h e D i s t r i c t Court h e a l t h was s e r i o u s l y e n d a n g e r e d . N e i t h e r does t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l any e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c h i l d would be endangered i n t h e custody of h i s father. As a r e s u l t , there i s no j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a s i s f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r t h e grandparents' p e t i t i o n f o r a change of Since the District Court's a f i n a l determination of order is expressed i n terms of child custody, review the District Court's addition, custody. d e n i a l of t h i s Court is e n t i t l e d the father's petition. to In a d i s t i n c t i o n e x i s t s concerning a p p e a l a b i l i t y between who i s e n t i t l e d t o c u s t o d y i n a h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g a n d t h e t y p i c a l c r i m i n a l habeas corpus i s s u e of whether t h e r e s t r a i n t exercised i s legal. (1978), See S t a t e ex r e l . M o n t . -9 5 8 2 P.2d 775, Turning t o the standard of have h e l d on numerous o c c a s i o n s G r a v e l e y v. 35 St.Rep. District Court 1049. review from habeas c o r p u s , that we is given t h e D i s t r i c t Court w i d e d i s c r e t i o n i n h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g s a n d we w i l l n o t i n t e r f e r e u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r abuse of Thompson ( 1 9 2 6 1 , 1 2 2 Mont. abuse of 47, 77 Mont. 1 9 5 P.2d 466, 697. 2 5 1 P. discretion. 1 6 3 ; Veach v. I n the present In re Veach (19481, c a s e we f i n d a c l e a r discretion. The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s who w a s e n t i t l e d t o custody a s between t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r and t h e c h i l d ' s maternal grandparents. T h i s was t h e c o u r t by t h e p a r t i e s . mony c o n c e r n i n g t h e b e s t purported The c o u r t r e f u s e d i n t e r e s t of order the District Court, subject, the issue expressly presented t o hear any t e s t i - the child. However interests of in its i t on t h e without any evidence b e f o r e to consider the best to the child a n d g a v e c u s t o d y t o t h e m o t h e r , who h a d n e v e r s o u g h t c u s t o d y . T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s an abuse of discretion. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t is w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o award c u s t o d y t o a n o n p e t i t i o n i n g p a r t y under ordinary circumstances. A s between t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r and t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s , the n a t u r a l f a t h e r was e n t i t l e d t o p r e v a i l on t h e b a s i s o f superior rights as a parent a s well a s h i s c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s under t h e divorce decree. ness as a parent, his child. P.2d 575. Absent a finding of a natural parent I n addition, of 174 Mont. t h e custody p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n s 40-4-211 or unfit- 282, 570 the Uniform t h r o u g h 40-4-221, a r e designed t o favor custodial continuity over the r i g h t s t h e competing custodians. This Court has the following policy reasons underlie Act neglect, i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e custody of I n t h e M a t t e r o f Doney ( 1 9 7 7 1 , Marriage and Divorce Act, MCA, abuse, his i n the child custody area: custodial continuity; provisions of (2) (1) t h e changes c r e a t e d by t h e t o p r e s e r v e t h e b a s i c p o l i c y of t o maximize f i n a l i t y of the divorce decree; custody litigation; stated that and (4) the custody ( 3 ) t o p r e v e n t "ping-pong" t o implement t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t f i n a l i t y of best the custody decree i s of i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d t h a n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of which p a r e n t should have custody. (19771, Mont. 172 Mont. we f i n d S e e S c h i e l e v. 81, 2 9 1 , 5 6 7 P.2d 5 7 4 P.2d 5 6 0 P.2d 459; 989, 35 St.Rep. that g r e a t e r importance t o the 905; E a s t o n v. 123. Sager, supra; G r o v e s v. Holm v . Groves (19771, Easton (19781, On t h e basis Holm of 173 Mont. this authority, the natural father is entitled to the r e t u r n of h i s son. A l t h o u g h we f i n d s e v e r a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s Court's in the District f i n d i n g s a n d c o n c l u s i o n s , we h a v e d e e m e d i t u n n e c e s s a r y a d d r e s s them, to s i n c e we h a v e h e l d t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t h a s superior rights t h a n a n o n p a r e n t a n d no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o change c u s t o d y was i n v o k e d . W therefore reverse the District Court's e order d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e t i t i o n and d i r e c t t h e D i s t r i c t Court the father's petition f o r habeas corpus. Nothing i s t o be construed a s p r e v e n t i n g t h e mother in this Chief J u s t i c e 7 ' fL *' I ices opinion from b r i n g i n g a subsequent motion f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-4-219, JU'S to grant MCA. \
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.
