MARRIAGE OF JOHNSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 89-139 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SUSAN DRISCOLL JOHNSON, petitioner and Respondent, and THOMAS JOHNSON, Respondent and Appellant. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Second ~udicial~istrict, In and for the County of silver Bow, The Honorable Arnold Olsen, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Brad L. Belke, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Mark A. Vucurovich, ~enningsen,Purcell, Vucurovich and ~ichardson,Butte, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: I c-;j'~ " .. . +. Clerk June 8, 1989 July 11, 1989 Mr. Justice L. C. Gulbrandson delivered the Opinion of the Court. The father, Thomas Johnson, appeals from the final custody decree entered by the Second Judicial District Court, Silver Bow County. The court denied the father's motion to modify the current joint custody arrangement so as to appoint him, instead of the mother, the primary physical custodian o f their son. We affirm. The following issues are presented on appeal: 1. Did the District Court err in failing to find that the best interest of the child required a modification of the present custody arrangement? 2. Did the District Court's adoption of the petitioner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decree indicate that the court failed to properly consider the facts or render its independent judgment on the matter? The parties married October 23, 1978. A son was born to this marriage. When the marriage was dissolved on October 3, 1984, the court awarded each parent joint custody of their son. The custody arrangement provided that each parent would have physical custody of their son on alternating days. In October of 1985, the mother filed a petition for modification of this alternating physical custody arrangement. The father filed a cross-petition for modification, requesting the court to grant him primary physical custody of their son. He alleged that the best interest of the child demanded such a modification because the mother did not provide proper nourishment or care for their son's physical or educational needs. Following a hearing on the matter, the District Court granted the mother's motion and awarded her primary physical custody of their son. Both parents retained joint legal custody of the child. The f a t h e r g e n e r a l l y was e n t i t l e d t o v i s i t a t i o n e v e r y Tuesday and T h u r s d a y , e v e r y o t h e r weekend, i n t h e summer. and f o r one month The c o u r t ' s m o d i f i c a t i o n d e c r e e was i s s u e d a f t e r t h e c o u r t found t h a t t h e m o t h e r p r o v i d e d p r o p e r c a r e for their son and that the best interest of the child demanded a m o d i f i c a t i o n a s t h e a l t e r n a t i n g p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y s c h e d u l e was c o n f u s i n g t o t h e s o n . The c o u r t a l s o had found t h a t t h e d a i l y c o n t a c t between t h e p a r e n t s b e c a u s e o f this a l t e r n a t i n g custody schedule continued t h e f a t h e r ' s h o s t i l i t y toward t h e mother. In July of moving 1 9 8 8 , t h e m o t h e r g a v e n o t i c e t h a t s h e was t o t h e S t a t e o f Washington. H e r reasons f o r moving i n c l u d e d w a n t i n g t o b e c l o s e r t o h e r f a m i l y and d e s i r i n g a better j o b w i t h o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f u t u r e advancement. She l e f t h e r s o n w i t h t h e f a t h e r f o r a few weeks i n J u l y w h i l e She r e t u r n e d t o l o o k i n g f o r a j o b and a home i n Washington. Montana and began c o l l e c t i n g h e r b e l o n g i n g s i n a n t i c i p a t i o n o f h e r move w i t h t h e i r s o n t o Redmond, Washington, i n A u g u s t . On August 3 , 1988, t h e f a t h e r f i l e d a m o t i o n t o modify t h e c u s t o d y o r d e r s o a s t o g r a n t him p r i m a r y c u s t o d y and t o p r e v e n t t h e m o t h e r from t a k i n g t h e i r s o n o u t o f Montana. A few d a y s l a t e r , t h e m o t h e r p r o c e e d e d w i t h h e r i n t e n d e d move, t a k i n g t h e i r son w i t h h e r . Hearings were n o t h e l d u n t i l January f a t h e r ' s modification motion, contempt motion, (The father had 9, 1989, on t h e t h e f a t h e r ' s November 22, 1988 and t h e m o t h e r ' s motion f o r c h i l d s u p p o r t . moved the court to order the mother in c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t b e c a u s e h e a l l e g e d s h e h a d d e n i e d him h i s visitation rights.) court denied found that retaining father the the the father's son's mother remained Following m o d i f i c a t i o n motion. best as h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n s , interest primary would physical e n t i t l e d t o reasonable be The court served custodian. the by The and open v i s i t a t i o n with their son. The court also ordered negotiate child support obligations. the parties to The f a t h e r a p p e a l s from t h i s f i n a l custody decree. The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e r e v e a l s t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s a r e good p a r e n t s who l o v e t h e i r s o n and d e s i r e t o h a v e him w i t h Both w e r e a b l e t o s h a r e a c o m p a r a t i v e l y e q u a l amount them. of time with their son while they both lived in Butte, However, t h e p a r t i e s now l i v e o v e r 400 m i l e s a p a r t , Montana. and t h e r e i n l i e s t h e r o o t o f t h e problem g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s appeal. W note a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t a parent with j o i n t custody e o f a c h i l d i s e n t i t l e d t o change h e r r e s i d e n c e , s u b j e c t o n l y t o t h e power o f t h e c o u r t " t o r e s t r a i n a removal which would prejudice the 40-6-231, rights MCA. or welfare of the child." Section A b s e n t s u c h p r e j u d i c e , a move by i t s e l f w i l l n o t c o n s t i t u t e grounds s u f f i c i e n t t o e n a b l e t h e o t h e r p a r e n t t o obtain a modification of arrangement. terms the of a joint custody S e e I n r e M a r r i a g e o f P a r a d i s ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 213 Mont. 1 7 7 , 1 8 0 , 689 P.2d 1 2 6 3 , 1265. The f a t h e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e w e l f a r e o f t h e i r s o n was p r e j u d i c e d by t h e move and t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e i r son n e c e s s i t a t e d awarding t h e f a t h e r primary p h y s i c a l custody because their son had already been integrated into f a t h e r ' s f a m i l y and i n t o t h e B u t t e community and s c h o o l . the The is necessary t o prevent destruction of h i s son's relationship with friends, family, father argues that such an award s c h o o l , and t h e community o f B u t t e , a d e s t r u c t i o n t h r e a t e n e d by t h e m o t h e r ' s move o u t o f t h e S t a t e . The court did not find this integration argument persuasive a s t o the best i n t e r e s t of the child i n t h i s case, and n e i t h e r d o w e . joint The f a t h e r d i d n o t move t o t e r m i n a t e t h e l e g a l and p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y . Rather, t h e f a t h e r moved o n l y t o modify t h e j o i n t c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n s s o a s t o p r o v i d e him, and n o t t h e m o t h e r , w i t h t h e p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f their The i n t e g r a t i o n r a t i o n a l e found i n S 40-4-219, son. which MCA, custody, applies only therefore t o proceedings St.Rep. terminate joint a r e not applicable t o t h i s case. I n re Custody o f A.L.S. e.g., to (Mont. 1 9 8 7 ) , 747 P.2d See, 1 9 2 , 44 1979; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Gahm ( 1 9 8 6 ) , 222 Mont. 722 P.2d 1138. Moreover, t h e s o n h a s r e a d i l y a d j u s t e d t o and a l s o become i n t e g r a t e d i n t o h i s e x t e n d e d f a m i l y , community in 300, Redmond, c h i l d i n t o t h e homes Washington. This s c h o o l and integration of a both parents i s t h e and community o f n e c e s s a r y outcome and g o a l o f a joint custody arrangement; integration as justification thus modification of may not serve the t e r m s of a a joint for custody decree. a See P a r a d i s , 689 P.2d a t 1265. The r e c o r d a l s o f a i l s t o show a n y o t h e r f a c t o r s , as those court to listed in determine 5 40-4-212, that the MCA, son's which would best such lead the i n t e r e s t would be s e r v e d and p r e s e r v e d by g i v i n g p r i m a r y p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f the child t o the father. The f a t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t h i s s o n ' s m e n t a l , m o r a l a n d p h y s i c a l h e a l t h was a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by t h e m o t h e r ' s d r i n k i n g and f r e q u e n t i n g o f b a r s i n t h e Redmond area. The court, however, held otherwise. We will not reverse the D i s t r i c t Court's findings unless they a r e clearly erroneous. A s s t a t e d i n R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P.: F i n d i n g s o f f a c t s h a l l n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and d u e r e g a r d s h a l l be given t o t h e opportunity of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m o t h e r d i d i n f a c t go o u t w i t h a f r i e n d and h a v e a " c o u p l e o f b e e r s " o n c e a week o r so. However, t h e s o n was n o t l e f t a l o n e a t s u c h t i m e s . stayed Further, with the his grandparents mother testified or that his she aunt and did not He cousins. drink to excess. W t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court's finding e t h a t t h e m o t h e r was a c a r i n g and l o v i n g p a r e n t ( F i n d i n g # 1 3 ) and t h e c o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s was n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e f a t h e r ' s a l l e g a t i o n s were groundless (Conclusion #4) and that the mother's primary p h y s i c a l custody remained i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . The Court's father's second adoption of argument is that the District t h e mother's proposed f i n d i n g s o f fact and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law i l l u s t r a t e d t h e c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e t o u s e i t s i n d e p e n d e n t judgment a s i s r e q u i r e d by law. father argues that several of the findings Further, the i s s u e d by the D i s t r i c t C o u r t a r e n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . This Court has previously s t a t e d t h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t may a d o p t one p a r t y ' s Kowis proposed f i n d i n g s o f ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 202 Mont. 371, 379, fact. 658 P.2d Kowis v . 1084, 1088. The c o u r t errs i n a d o p t i n g a p a r t y ' s p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s o n l y i f t h e c o u r t does s o "without proper c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e f a c t s " I n re M a r r i a g e o f and w i t h a l a c k o f i n d e p e n d e n t judgment. Callahan 1644. (Mont. This 1 9 8 8 ) , 762 P.2d will Court not 205, 209, overturn a 45 St.Rep. district 1639, court's f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y a r e b a s e d upon t h o s e s u b m i t t e d by c o u n s e l i f : [the] findings and conclusions are s u f f i c i e n t l y comprehensive and p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i s s u e s t o provide a b a s i s f o r decision, and are s u p p o r t e d by the evidence. Kowis, 658 P.2d a t 1088. The r e c o r d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c o u r t properly considered a l l t h e pertinent f a c t s during a hearing c o n d u c t e d s e v e r a l weeks b e f o r e t h e c o u r t i s s u e d i t s f i n d i n g s and conclusions. interest of the The son court's entailed conclusion, leaving him that in the the best primary p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f h i s m o t h e r , was r e n d e r e d a f t e r t h e judge himself questioned the child. The findings in this case are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issue raised by the father. Moreover, the findings, when viewed as a whole, are supported by existing evidence. The father also argued that the court's decision to award primary physical custody of their son to the mother denied him his right to joint custody. This argument would have been a proper subject for an appeal following the 1986 modification decree, which awarded the mother primary physical custody. This appeal, however, is only from the decree denying the father primary physical custody of his son, and as such, the argument is not only irrelevant to this appeal but actually counterproductive to the father's contention that he should have been awarded primary physical custody. We therefore decline to address this argument. The decision of the District Court is affirmed. We 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.
