No. 12202
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN
The S t a t e o f Montana ex rel., ROBERT DUANE SHELHAMER ,
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT O THE FOURTEENTH F i m a r c u L DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY OF MUSSELSHELL and THE HON. N T ALLEN, A p r e s i d i n g judge,
Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :
Counsel o f Record:
For Relator :
Robert L. S t e p h e n s , Jr. a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana.
F o r Respondents :
Ask and Brower, Roundup, Montana. John L. P r a t e a r g u e d , Roundup, Montana.
- ---
Submitted : F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1972
Decided: MAR 6 - 1972
M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
T h i s i s a n o r i g i n a l p r o c e e d i n g wherein r e l a t o r s o u g h t a n a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t t o r e q u i r e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f an o r d e r e n t e r -ed by t h e r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t i n a contempt proceeding.
From t h e r e c o r d it a p p e a r s t h a t i n a d i v o r c e p r o c e e d i n g e n t i t l e d P h y l l i s A , Shelhamer, P l a i n t i f f , v. Robert Duane Shelhamer, Defendant, pending i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f M u s s e l s h e l l County, wherein a d e c r e e o f d i v o r c e was e n t e r e d on October 7 , 1968, t h e p l a i n t i f f e x e c u t e d an a f f i d a v i t i n re contempt. I t was a l l e g e d t h e r e i n that t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t p a i d c e r t a i n s u p p o r t money as r e q u i r e d by t h e aforementioned decree, and prayed t h a t an o r d e r t o show c a u s e b e i s s u e d r e q u i r i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e , if any he h a d , why he s h o u l d n o t b e h e l d i n contempt of c o u r t , and a l s o pay p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s f o r t h e proceeding.
The r e s p o n d e n t c o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e under d a t e o f September 2 4 , 1971, r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r b e f o r e it on October 8 , 1971.
The h e a r i n g was c o n t i n u e d t o October 1 8 , 1971, a t which t i m e t h e p a r t i e s appeared i n c o u r t and t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n from e a c h side as t o t h e d e l i n q u e n c i e s i n s u p p o r t payments and e x c u s e s f o r nonpayment t h e r e o f .
Respondent c o u r t d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g e x p r e s s e d i t s d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e custody provisions contained i n t h e o r i g i n a l decree, found d e f e n d a n t g u i l t y o f contempt f o r f a i l u r e t o s u p p o r t t h e c h i l d r e n , f i n e d him, and o v e r t h e o b j e c t i o n s o f h i s c o u n s e l d i r e c t e d a change b e made i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n . A f o r m a l o r d e r was t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d on November 5 , 1971.
I t i s conceded by t h e p a r t i e s t h a t t h e i s s u e h e r e i s whether o r n o t t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n u n i l a t e r a l l y t e r m i n a t -i n g r e l a t o r ' s p a r t i a l c u s t o d y r i g h t s g r a n t e d by a p r i o r d i v o r c e d e c r e e a t a contempt h e a r i n g f o r nonsupport w i t h o u t r e q u e s t by t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y f o r t h e r e l i e f g r a n t e d and w i t h o u t n o t i c e t o t h e r e l a t o r t h a t h i s r i g h t of p a r t i a l c u s t o d y would be a t i s s u e .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s c o n t i n u i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n i n c h i l d c u s t o d y matters and h a s t h e c o n t i n u i n g power t o modify o r d e r s and change c u s t o d y , a l l a s provided i n s e c t i o n 21-138, R.C.M. 1947, which r e a d s :
"Orders r e s p e c t i n g c u s t o d y o f c h i l d r e n . In an a c t i o n f o r d i v o r c e t h e c o u r t o r judge may, b e f o r e o r a f t e r judgment, g i v e such d i r e c t i o n f ~ t h e c u s t o d y , care, and e d u c a t i o n o f t h e r c h i l d r e n of t h e m a r r i a g e as may seem neces- s a r y o r p r o p e r , and may a t any t i m e v a c a t e o r modify t h e same."
A s w e s t a t e d i n Barbour v. Barbour, 134 Mont. 317, 324,
"The e f f e c t of R.C.M. 1947, s e c t i o n 21-138, i s t o make a l l c h i l d c u s t o d y o r d e r s i n t e r l o c u t o r y i n nature, discretionary with the d i s t r i c t court, and c o n d i t i o n e d by what t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n i t s sound d i s c r e t i o n b e l i e v e s t o be f o r t h e well-being o f t h e c h i l d concerned. * * * "
T h i s does n o t c o n t e m p l a t e , however, t h a t due p r o c e s s s h o u l d n o t b e observed. Here w e have a show c a u s e o r d e r f o r
n o n s u p p o r t , no r e q u e s t f o r a change o f c u s t o d y ; n o t h i n g i n t h e p l e a d i n g s t o i n d i c a t e a change i n c u s t o d y was s o u g h t .
The language used by t h e Supreme C o u r t of Maine i n Remick v. R o l l i n s , 1 4 1 M e . 65, 38 A.2d 883, 884, a p p e a r s p a r -t i c u l a r l y appropriate:
"There was no p r a y e r i n t h e p e t i t i o n t o change any p r o v i s i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l decree as t o c u s t o d y and v i s i t a t i o n of t h e c h i l d r e n , b u t t h e new d e c r e e makes an a l t e r a t i o n i n t h a t r e s p e c t . Established practice gives p a r t i e s a r i g h t t o assume t h a t no change w i l l b e made on a n i s s u e which i s n o t f o r m a l l y p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t by t h e p e t i t i o n o r p l e a d i n g s . "
To t h e same e f f e c t i s t h e s t a t e m e n t c o n t a i n e d i n S c o t t v. S c o t t , 174 Iowa 740, 156 N.W. 834, 836, wherein t h e Iowa c o u r t h e l d :
"The m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e d e c r e e , by s t r i k i n g t h e r e f r o m t h e p r o v i s i o n r e b a t i n g t o t h e cus- t o d y of t h e c h i l d , was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y . T h i s o r d e r was e n t e r e d a t t h e t e r m follow- i n g t h a t a t which t h e d e c r e e w a s e n t e r e d , and t h e r e f o r e c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y have been made on t h e c o u r t ' s own motion o r w i t h o u t notice to the plaintiff."
I n Welch v. Welch, 256 Iowa 1020, 129 N.W.2d 642, 643, t h e Iowa c o u r t i n r u l i n g i n t h e same v e i n , s t a t e d :
"Nothing i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r amendment t h e r e t o sets o u t any change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s s i n c e t h e d i v o r c e d e c r e e was e n t e r e d t h a t s u p p o r t s a change i n i t s c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n s n o r i n d i c a t e s a d e s i r e t h e r e f o r . The i s s u e o f c u s t o d y was n o t r a i s e d . * * * "
Respondent c i t e s t h e case o f P e a r c e v. Pearce, (1904) 30 Mont. 2 6 9 , 76 P. 289, as a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t on i t s own motion may i n q u i r e i n t o t h e f a c t s r e s p e c t -i n g c h i l d c u s t o d y and make a n a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r . W e must b e a r i n mind t h a t i n P e a r c e b o t h p a r t i e s were b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and t h e i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e p l e a d i n g s w a s t h a t a change of c u s t o d y o f t h e minor c h i l d s h o u l d be made t o t h e f a t h e r , and s u c h p r a y e r w a s g r a n t e d and t h e ex-wife appealed. I n t h e c o u r s e of i t s o p i n i o n t h i s C o u r t stated:
" * * * If i t makes a m i s t a k e i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , it may and s h o u l d remedy t h e same, upon a p r o p e r showing, as soon t h e r e a f t e r as p o s s i b l e ; and t h e l a w , i n i t s b e n e f i c e n c e , and w i t h a t e n d e r care f o r t h e i n f a n t s , h a s provided t h e means * * * .I1 (Emphasis o u r s . )
I n Brice v. Brice ( 1 9 1 5 ) , 50 Mont. 388, 147 P. 164, t h i s C o u r t , c i t i n g P e a r c e a s a u t h o r i t y , stated:
" * * * Under s e c t i o n 3678 t h e c o u r t may, i n any case, b e f o r e o r a f t e r judgment, make such p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e c h i l d as t h e circum- s t a n c e s r e q u i r e ; f o r though under t h e decree t h e husband may be relieved e n t i r e l y from any o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o v i d e f o r t h e w i f e , t h e c o u r t may n e v e r t h e l e s s , under s e c t i o n 3678, upon p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n , make such o r d e r f o r t h e i r c u s t o d y and maintenance as t h e circum- s t a n c e s j u s t i f y . * * * " (Emphasis o u r s . )
No such p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n had been made t o t h e c o u r t i n t h e cause here being considered.
W e are n o t h e r e d e a l i n g w i t h c o m p l a i n t s made t o t h e c o u r t w i t h r e s p e c t t o l a c k o f c a r e and maintenance by p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s ; c e r t a i n l y i n such i n s t a n c e s t h e c o u r t upon s u c h showing may make any and a l l o r d e r s n e c e s s a r y and p r o p e r t o see t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s c u s t o d y i s t e m p o r a r i l y p l a c e d where it can be c a r e d f o r ; t h e r e a f t e r g i v i n g n o t i c e t o t h e p a r e n t s as prov i d e d by l a w , and i f a permanent change i n c u s t o d y a p p e a r s to t h e c o u r t t o be n e c e s s a r y t h e n due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t a n app l i c a t i o n be made f o r t h a t purpose and p r o p e r n o t i c e o f s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n be given.
W hold t h a t t h e c o u r t h e r e e r r e d i n changing t h e e
custody p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e nonsupport contemptproceeding and t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e c o u r t ' s order o f November 5 , 1971, i s ann u l l e d and h e l d for naugh
n W e concur: A' , f
- • " .
k u d g 6 , .'sit<ihtj i ~ ' ~ l a ofe M r . c J u s t i c e Wesley c a s t l e s .