MARRIAGE OF BROWN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 85-06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 IN RE THE LWRRIAGE OF LYNDA SUE BROWN, Petitioner and Appellant, and DAVID WAYNE BROWN, Respondent and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Thomas Olson, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: McKinley Anderson, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Ronald A. Saper, Phoenix, Arizona Submitted on Brief: necid,ed: Filed: SEP 1d 1985 *,Ad t Clerk June 13, 1985 September 1 0 , 1985 M r . J u s t i c e L. Court. Gulbrandson C. The p e t i t i o n e r appeals delivered t h e Opinion o f from a n o r d e r o f t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l District, Court of the the D i s t r i c t G a l l a t i n County, s t a y i n g a l l p r o c e e d i n g s i n Montana a n d d e f e r r i n g t o A r i z o n a ' s with regard t o t h e custody o f minor c h i l d r e n . Wayne jurisdiction Brown, respondent, We affirm. Oavid and p e t i t i o n e r w e r e m a r r i e d on F e b r u a r y 2 ? , had two children before Lynda S u e Brown, 1982 i n Utah. separating early i n A t the 1984. t i m e of t h e s e p a r a t i o n t h e y r e s i d e d i n Arizona. They However, t h e p e t i t i o n e r l e f t A r i z o n a a n d came t o Montana w i t h t h e y o u n g e s t c h i l d sometime i n e a r l y 1984. A p p a r e n t l y , on J u l y 1 4 , 1984, although t h e d a t e i s i n q u e s t i o n , s h e r e t u r n e d t o Arizona i n o r d e r t o b r i n g t h e o l d e r c h i l d back w i t h h e r t o Montana. respondent his a l l e g e s p e t i t i o n e r accomplished residence with three unknown w h i l e s h e removed t h e c h i l d . on the question of males The t h i s by e n t e r i n g who assaulted him During a telephone conference jurisdiction, counsel for petitioner s t a t e d t o t h e c o u r t t h a t p e t i t i o n e r r e s i d e d i n Arizona from a b o u t O c t o b e r 1982 t h r o u g h J u n e 1 9 8 4 . On July 13, 1984, S u p e r i o r Court o f Arizona between himself accomplished by and the respondent the petitioner. mail. S e r v i c e was The respondent also Arizona c o u r t f o r temporary custody o f support from n o t i c e on A u g u s t 9 , the the f o r a dissolution of t h e marriage initially t h r o u g h p u b l i c a t i o n and on September 1 4 , registered child petitioned petitioner. 1984, petitioned the t h e c h i l d r ~ na n d f o r Although she received 1 9 8 4 o f a show c a u s e h e a r i n g i n A r i z o n a on a n o r d e r f o r t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y a n d s u p p o r t , t h e p e t i t i o n e r did not appear or respond. The A r i z o n a court, after the h e a r i n g on August 1 3 , 1 9 8 4 , awarded t e m p o r a r y c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e respondent. The petitioner filed for granted, temporary custody of from and children the separation She r e q u e s t e d , 1984. r e s p o n d e n t i n Montana on J u l y 2 0 , was legal a the by Montana c o u r t t h a t same d a y p e n d i n g a h e a r i n g . The respondent temporary order on moved October to dismiss 18, Arizona had jurisdiction because Arizona for an time 1984 action extended On O c t o b e r 2 6 , Arizona. the Montana the on court's grounds that f a m i l y had r e s i d e d prior to the children were and b e c a u s e the the filing of f o r c i b l y removed in the from 1 9 8 4 , t h e Montana and A r i z o n a c o u r t s j o i n t l y o r d e r e d a n o r a l argument on t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t a k e p l a c e by t e l e p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e on November 5 , Both judges and counsel for petitioner and 1984. respondent p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e conference. O November n conferring staying 1.984, t h e j u d g e s 19, jurisdiction proceedings December 2 7 , in of the custody Montana; issue setting a in Arizona; hearing for 1984 on t h e i s s u e o f c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t b e f o r e a n A r i z o n a d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s judge; t o be signed a j o i n t order personally present ordering the petitioner a t the hearing; and ordering the minor c h i l d r e n t o b e p r e s e n t i n A r i z o n a on o r p r i o r t o t h e hearing date. P e t i t i o n e r a p p e a l s t h i s o r d e r and r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g issues: (1) Should Montana t a k e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine t h e c u s t o d y and s u p p o r t o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n ? (2) Was t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u i r e d t o a p p o i n t c o u n s e l f o r t h e minor c h i l d r e n ? (3) Were t h e p e t i t i o n e r o r t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n d e n i e d due p r o c e s s o r any o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s ? (4) Was the petitioner entitled to an evidentiary h e a r i n g i n Montana? The Uniform Child addresses jurisdiction state has S 40-7-104, MCA, an we Jurisdiction Act in look to t o determine whether a the the litigation. provisions According of to S 40-4-211, s t a t e has a sufficient interest to take jurisdiction. (1) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e c o m p e t e n t t o decide child custody matters has jurisdiction t o make a c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n by i n i t i a l or m o d i f i c a t i o n decree i f : (a) (UCCJA) i n c u s t o d y c a s e s w h e r e more t h a n o n e interest MCA, Custody this state: ( i ) i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e the time of commencement proceedings; or child a t of the ( i i ) h a d b e e n t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e w i t h i n 6 m o n t h s b e f o r e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g and t h e c h i l d i s a b s e n t from t h i s s t a t e b e c a u s e o f h i s removal o r retention by a person claiming his c u s t o d y o r f o r o t h e r r e a s o n and a p a r e n t o r person a c t i n g a s parent continues t o live i n t h i s s t a t e ; o r f b ) it i s i n 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 t h a t a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e assume j u r i s d i c t i o n because: (i) t h e c h i l d and h i s p a r e n t s o r t h e c h i l d and a t l e a s t one c o n t e s t a n t have a s i g n i f i c a n t connection with t h i s s t a t e ; and (ii) t h e r e i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s s t a t e substantial evidence concerning the care, or future child's present protection, training, snd personal relationships; o r (c) t h e c h i l d i s p h y s i c a l l y p r e s e n t t h i s s t a t e and: (i) h a s b e e n abandoned; o r in ( i i ) it i s n e c e s s a r y i n a n e m e r g e n c y t o p r o t e c t him b e c a u s e h e h a s b e e n s u b j e c t e d t o o r threatened with mistreatment o r abuse o r i s neglected o r dependent; o r (d) (i) no o t h e r s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n under prerequisites s u b s t a n t i a 1l y in (1) ( a ) , accordance with subsections (1) (b), o r (1) ( c ) o f t h i s s e c t i o n ... In the case a t bar, i s n o t t h e home Montana s t a t e of the c h i l d r e n a n d was n o t t h e i r home s t a t e w i t h i n t h e p r i o r s i x months. Both p a r t i e s r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e Arizona from assume jurisdiction Further, with neither this their 1982 They the 1984. of Montana resided June children's or July 1984. and MCA. connection i n Montana current cannot fj 40-4-211, any s i g n i f i c a n t p a s t never in Thus (1) ( a ) under return about June child has state. mother's evidence until family resided i n prior While possible to some future c a r e i s i n Montana, a n y e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e i r p r i o r c a r e , protection, their t r a i n i n g , a n d p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s would b e i n resident Montana state, cannot S 40-4-211, Arizona, assume jurisdiction (1)( c ) MCA. r a t h e r t h a n Montana. requires (1) ( b ) under the Thus, child's of physical p r e s e n c e a n d e i t h e r abandonment o r t h e n e c e s s i t y o f e m e r g e n c y protection. Petitioner does not suggest abandonment and a l l e g e s n o e m e r g e n c y s i t u a t i o n t h a t would r e q u i r e M o n t a n a ' s jurisdiction rather than Arizona's jurisdiction. Finally, A r i z o n a was t h e c h i l d r e n ' s r e s i d e n c e a n d home s t a t e a n d c o u l d and did take subsection jurisdiction under (1)( a ) , subsection thus ( l ) ( d ) p r o v i d e s n o a u t h o r i t y f o r Montana t o a s s u m e jurisdiction. Even assuming Montana has the section t o hear t h i s custody b a t t l e , UCCJA jurisdiction would confer S e c t i o n 40-7-107(1), MA provides: C in authority several the under this p r o v i s i o n s of Arizona court. c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e may n o t e x e r c i s e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n under t h i s chapter i f a t t i m e of filing the petition a the proceeding concerning t h e custody o f t h e c h i l d was p e n d i n g i n a c o u r t o f a n o t h e r state exercising jurisdiction s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n conformity with t h i s chapter u n l e s s t h e proceeding i s stayed h7 t h e c o u r t o f t h e o t h e r s t a t e because 1 t h i s s t a t e i s a more a p p r o p r i a t e forum o r f o r o t h e r reasons. A Here, the proceedings were filed prior to i n Arizona, those stayed i t s proceedings. the i n Montana s t a t e of and residence, Arizona had not Thus, u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n t h e Montana court properly declined t o exercise i t s jurisdiction. Section exercise 40-7-108, jurisdiction MCA if more a p p r o p r i a t e forum. permits a court t o decline to it f i n d s t h a t a n o t h e r s t a t e i s a The f a c t o r s t h a t may be c o n s i d e r e d i n c l u d e which s t a t e i s o r r e c e n t l y was t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e and t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of evidence in the other state. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o s t a y p r o c e e d i n g s would h a v e b e e n proper under t h i s s t a t u t e a s well. Court correctly ordered, in stayed Montana conjunction with W e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t proceedings the and Arizona correctly court, that j u r i s d i c t i o n rests i n A r i z o n a . S e c t i o n 40-4-205, MCA s t a t e s : [ T l h e c o u r t may a p p o i n t a n a t t o r n e y t o the interests of a minor represent dependent c h i l d with respect t o h i s s u p p o r t , c u s t o d y , and v i s i t a t i o n ... The s o l e c o n c e r n o f t h e c o u r t below was w h e t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o determine t h o s e i s s u e s should be S e c t i o n 40-4-205, to the committed children. MCA a p p l i e s t o t h e s u b s t a n t i v e i s s u e s , n o t question no i n Montana o r A r i z o n a . error of in jurisdiction. n.ot a p p o i n t i n g The an District attorney Court for the In the third issue, p e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t s h e and h e r c h i l d r e n w e r e d e n i e d d u e p r o c e s s , e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , and a speedy remedy proceedings, when the Court District stayed Montana's l e a v i n g A r i z o n a ' s c o u r t s y s t e m a s t h e o n l y forum f o r h e r claims. She s u p p o r t s t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s by d i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e lack of testimony, cross-examination proper h e a r i n g i n Arizona. and Petitioner's action in failing t o a p p e a r a f t e r n o t i c e was t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e l a c k o f t e s t i m o n y and c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . if and, respondent The A r i z o n a forum r e m a i n s open t o h e r fails to proceed, M o n t a n a ' s c o u r t s y s t e m w i l l open. then the door to W e find these contentions without m e r i t . Finally, the "best interests S 40-4-212, MCA and jurisdiction is There was no jurisdiction matter petitioner and of argues the that UCCJA child" test c o n f l i c t s with enunciated in t h a t t h e telephone conference regarding not adequate conflict between as an the evidentiary rules for hearing. determining when two s t a t e s have a n i n t e r e s t i n a c u s t o d y the rules for determining custody. is One a p r o c e d u r a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o t h e p r o p e r forum, made p r i o r t o any s u b s t a n t i v e i n q u i r y , and t h e o t h e r i s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of substantive only the parental procedural a b i l i t i e s of e i t h e r would hold that rules. have The issue, telephone thus conference evidence addressed concerning the t h e p a r t i e s o r a l l e g e d misconduct o f been unnecessary and no e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was inappropriate. required under We these circumstances. The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . " Justice, /' 1 We c o n c u r : H

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.