MATTER OF M N

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 82--119 I N THE SUPfiEME COURT CF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1982 I N THE MATTER O F M.N., R.N., B.N., S.N. a n d W . N . , N e g l e c t e d a n d Dependent c h i l d r e n . 1 from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f F e r g u s , The H o n o r a b l e R. D. B l c P h i l l i p s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : T o r g e r S. Oaas, Lewistown, Montana C r a i g R. B u e h l e r , Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: B r a d l e y B. William E. P a r r i s h , Lewistown, Montana B e r g e r , Lewistown, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: AUG 11 1982 J u l y 1, 1982 August 11, 1982 ~ u s t i c eGene B. Mr. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l w a s b r o u g h t by Mrs. grandmother c u s t o d y of of the five of children, N. her grandchildren. e n t e r e d by t h e H o n o r a b l e R. Ann S p a r k s , who the paternal intervened to seek She s e e k s t o h a v e t h e j u d g m e n t , McPhillips, D. i n t h e District Court t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l District, g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y of t h e f i v e N. c h i l d r e n t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f 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) . The n a t u r a l S.N., B.N., parents and W . N . , of the f i v e N. children, M.N., R.N., h a v e had p r o b l e m s c a r i n g f o r and r a i s i n g time. t h e c h i l d r e n o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d of They h a v e had c o n t a c t w i t h w e l f a r e a g e n c i e s i n two o t h e r s t a t e s p r i o r to t h e i r a r r i v a l i n Montana. avoid f a m i l y came to F e r g u s C o u n t y , The N . contact with the welfare authorities in Montana, the State to of D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d t h e f a m i l y was i n F e r g u s C o u n t y , Washington. t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d , W. N . , was d e c l a r e d d e p e n d e n t and n e g l e c t e d , b u t was r e t u r n e d t o h i s n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . On O c t o b e r 3 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e SRS r e c e i v e d word t h a t t h e N . was p l a n n i n g t o l e a v e L e w i s t o w n . of all the An children MCA. At time and hearing adjudicatory 41-3-404 The SRS t o o k e m e r g e n c y c u s t o d y that was held, at that family hearing all has had custody since. pursuant five to Section children N. were d e c l a r e d y o u t h s i n need o f care, and t h e y r e m a i n e d i n t h e c u s t o d y of the SRS. 41-3-406, Mrs. A September the of hearing, appellant, 1981 t o see testified what she required by Section 1982. A t t h a t time s h e moved t o Montana i n was h e l d ~ r i d a y , J a n u a r y 29, MCA, Sparks, dispositional could do about the kids ( g r a n d c h i l d r e n ) ; t h a t s h e was p r e s e n t l y w o r k i n g , b u t was p l a n n i n g She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w a s pre- t o move b a c k t o W a s h i n g t o n . s e n t a t the adjudicatory hearing. Upon completion J u d g e IYlcPhillips entered rights and of, G.N. J.N, of the his judgment the natural , dispositional hearing terminating the parental the f i v e N. parents of c h i l d r e n and a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y t o t h e SRS w i t h t h e r i g h t to con- s e n t to a d o p t i o n . The sole This appeal followed. issue presented to this Court for review Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f is: the five m i n o r N. c h i l d r e n to t h e SRS, w i t h t h e r i g h t to c o n s e n t to adopt i o n r a t h e r t h a n to t h e i r p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r , Mrs. Ann S p a r k s ? A grandmother grandparent, t h a t of not, by virtue have any s u p e r i o r r i g h t of a non-relative. Department of 375; does Graham v. Human R e s o u r c e s , of her status as a a d o p t i o n o r c u s t o d y to Childrens Service Division, ( 1 9 7 9 ) r 39 0 r . A p p . 27, 5 9 1 P.2d I n R e t h e P e o p l e o f t h e I n t e r e s t o f C. P. and D.P. Children ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 34 Colo.App, 5 4 , 5 2 4 P.2d 316; S e c t i o n 41-3-406, MCA, sup- It states: ports t h i s position also. " D i s p o s i t i o n a l Hearing. (1) I f a y o u t h i s f o u n d t o be abused, neglected, or dependent under 41-3-404, the court a f t e r the dispositional hearing may e n t e r i t s j u d g m e n t m a k i n g a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d i s p o s i t i o n s ( e m p h a s i s added ) t o p r o t e c t t h e w e l f a r e of t h e youth: "(a) ... "(b) transfer following: legal custody to any of the " ( i i i ) a r e l a t i v e or o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l who, a f t e r s t u d y by a s o c i a l s e r v i c e a g e n c y d e s i g n a t e d b y t h e c o u r t , i s found b y t h e c o u r t to b e q u a l i f i e d to r e c e i v e and care f o r y o u t h ; .I1 .. T h i s s e c t i o n is n o t m a n d a t o r y b u t p l a c e s t h e d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w h e t h e r o r n o t t o award c u s t o d y to a r e l a t i v e . I n t h e Matter o f 6 1 5 P.2d T.J.D., 2 1 2 , 37 S t . R p t r . and R.J.W. J.L.D. (1980), M ---- I T 1385, 1390. Where c u s t o d y i s c o n c e r n e d , 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 r e n is t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n . a n d R. J . W . , s u p r a ; I n R e G o r e Y o u t h s i n Need of Care PIT 321, 570 P.2d 1 7 6 MT 202, I n t h e Matter o f T.J.D., ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 1 1 1 0 ; I n t h e Matter o f I n q u i r y i n t o J J S 577 P.2d 378; In t h e Matter o f ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 M 1 1 6 , 5 5 1 P.2d 656: T J.L.D. Burgoff (1978), and Berry In t h e Matter o f D e c l a r i n g t h e J o n e s and P e t e r s o n C h i l d r e n D e p e n d e n t and N e g l e c t e d C h i l d r e n v. P e t e r s o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 8 MT 1, 539 P.2d 1193. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s case g a v e s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n to t h e g r a n d m o t h e r ' s r e q u e s t b u t was c o m p e l l e d to b a l a n c e t h i s w i t h t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d r e n as is e v i d e n c e d by t h e C o u r t ' s Find i n g of Fact N o . IV. "The p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r o f t h e f i v e ( 5 ) c h i l d r e n , SPARKS, h a s a s k e d f o r c u s t o d y o f a l l o r a n y p a r t o f t h e f i v e ( 5 ) c h i l d r e n . Mrs. S p a r k s i s a widow and 5 7 y e a r s o l d . She p r e s e n t l y w o r k s a t E d d i e ' s C o r n e r as a c o o k f i v e ( 5 ) n i g h t s a week and Over t h e p a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) or f o u r l i v e s i n Moore. ( 4 ) m o n t h s , s h e n o t o n l y o b t a i n e d employment b u t h a s managed t o s a v e u p FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS M r s . Sparks p l a n s to e v e n t u a l l y r e t u r n ($500.00). to Washington where she resides with her 9 0 - y e a r - o l d f a t h e r . S h e , b y n e c e s s i t y , h a s t o work f o r a l i v i n g . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t i t would be a b u r d e n upon Mrs. S p a r k s to award h e r c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y s h e would be u n a b l e t o resist t h e i n t r u s i o n s o f t h a t it would i n t h e l o n g r u n b o t h J . N . and G . N . ; b e c o n t r a r y to t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of s a i d c h i l d r e n o r a n y o f them t o award c u s t o d y to Mrs. S p a r k s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t t i m e is somewhat o f t h e e s s e n c e and t h e p r o p e n s i t i e s o f t h e natural parents. ANN " F u r t h e r , t h e Court f i n d s t h a t it is i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f s a i d c h i l d r e n t h a t t h e y c o n t i n u e to be p l a c e d w i t h t h e Department of S o c i a l S e r v i c e s t o c o n t i n u e t h e e x c e l l e n t p r o g r e s s s a i d c h i l d r e n have shown s i n c e t h e D e p a r t m e n t h a s had t h e i r c u s t o d y . " Appellant, grandmother, contends t h a t t h e p o l i c y set o u t i n s e c t i o n 4 1 - 3 - 1 0 1 ( l ) ( d ) , MCA, of the family whenever District Court. But, was possible, not followed as t h i s C o u r t h a s made i n its p r i o r d e c i s i o n of supra, o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e u n i t y and w e l f a r e I n R e t h e Matter o f by the abundantly c l e a r I n q u i r y i n t o JJS, " [ F l a m i l y u n i t y need n o t be p r e s e r v e d a t t h e e x p e n s e of t h e c h i l d ' s b e s t interest,'' 5 7 7 P.2d a t 382. I n t h e p r e s e n t case b o t h t h e g r a n d m o t h e r and t h e SRS p r e - s e n t e d e v i d e n c e as t o t h e i r a b i l i t y t o s e r v e t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e s t interest. The SRS p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s i n d i - v i d u a l n e e d s o u t w e i g h e d t h e i r need to r e m a i n t o g e t h e r to this, that Mrs. Sparks separation development and, of brought siblings therefore, in . a p s y c h o l o g i s t who causes damage to their Contrary testified emotional i t would be b e t t e r f o r t h e c h i l d r e n t o p l a c e them w i t h Mrs. S p a r k s . T h e r e was a l s o con£ l i c t i n g e v i - d e n c e i n o t h e r areas c o n c e r n i n g Mrs. S p a r k s 1 a b i l i t y to r a i s e t h e C o n c e r n was a l s o v o i c e d as Mrs. S p a r k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t children. she wishes children, natural to which parents return is only are now to S e d r o Wooly, W a s h i n g t o n , miles 50 living, from that where the the with the children's children might be r e t u r n e d t o them. I n considering a l l the evidence t o g e t h e r with such f a c t o r s Sparks1 age, as M r s . l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t and need t o work, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment f i n d i n g it i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of the right children to consent t h a t c u s t o d y be to adoption. awarded The to t h e District SRS, with Court's the findings e n j o y a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , and s i n c e t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o s u p p o r t h i s judgment, not and do not interfere with Judge McPhillipsl .& The j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t is ,&irmed. J u's t i c e , W e concur: pA--e-4wcltDweQJ Chief J u s t i c e w e can- judgment.

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.