Guardianship of P.J.D.

No. 14759 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN RE THE GUARDIANSHIP OF P.J.D.,

a minor.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, Honorable H. William Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Richard Ganulin argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Dennis Conner argued, Great Falls, Montana Gary Zadick argued, Great Falls, Montana

Submitted: September 14, 1979 Decided: SEP 2 5 1979

Filed: Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

On ~ p r i l 4 , 1969, P . J . D . 2 was d e c l a r e d a d e p e n d e n t and

neglected child. The D i v i s i o n of C h i l d Welfare S e r v i c e s o f t h e Department of P u b l i c Welfare was awarded permanent l e g a l custody with t h e r i g h t t o consent t o t h e adoption of t h e youth. On May 7, 1969, P.J.D. was p l a c e d i n t h e f o s t e r c a r e of t h e a p p e l l a n t s h e r e i n . She h a s r e s i d e d w i t h them s i n c e

that time. O November 1 7 , 1974, P.J.D. n was permanently

placed with the appellants.

P.J.D. h a s been d i s a b l e d w i t h c e r e b r a l p a l s y s i n c e birth. A p p e l l a n t s have been approved a s a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s ; however, t h e y a r e f i n a n c i a l l y u n a b l e t o a d o p t P . J . D . On J u n e 27, 1978, a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , County of Cascade, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e y be a p p o i n t e d g u a r d i a n s o f P.J.D., their permanent f o s t e r c h i l d . The Department of S o c i a l and Reh a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s (SRS) made a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n on t h e grounds t h a t t h e c o u r t l a c k e d s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m upon which r e l i e f c o u l d b e g r a n t e d . On J a n u a r y 2 2 , 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d SRS's motion t o d i s m i s s and, on F e b r u a r y 8 , 1979, d e n i e d a p p e l l a n t s ' motion t o amend t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of law by v a c a t i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motion.

A p p e l l a n t s a p p e a l from t h e s e o r d e r s o f t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t . t

The s o l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t i s t h e i n t e r p r e -t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 72-5-222(1), MCA, and s e c t i o n 72-5-225(2),

MCA, t o d e t e r m i n e (1) whether t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t h a s j u r i s - t

d i c t i o n t o a p p o i n t permanent f o s t e r p a r e n t s a s g u a r d i a n s of a c h i l d i n t h e l e g a l c u s t o d y of SRS, and ( 2 ) whether SRS e v e r had p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o v e r P . J . D . and, i f s o , whether t h e s e r i g h t s have been suspended by c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,

A p p e l l a n t s ' p r i n c i p a l arguments c a n be summarized a s follows :

(1) The t e r m " p a r e n t a l r i g h t s " a s used i n s e c t i o n 72-5-2 2 2 ( 1 ) , MCA, r e f e r s t o t h e r i g h t s of t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s , which i n t h i s c a s e w e r e t e r m i n a t e d on A p r i l 24, 1969. The f o s t e r p a r e n t s have t h e r i g h t t o c u s t o d y , companionship and s e r v i c e s o f t h e c h i l d and c o n t r o l h e r r e l i g i o n , e d u c a t i o n and d i s c i p l i n e .

( 2 ) SRS's " p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f c u s t o d y " were t e r m i n a t e d by t h e permanent f o s t e r placement w i t h a p p e l l a n t s . Section

72-5-222 ( I ) , MCA, and ARM S46-2.6 ( 2 ) -S640 ( 3 ) ( c ) ( i ) . ( 3 ) Appellants request t h i s Court t o l i m i t i t s d e c i s i o n

t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e and a p p o i n t them g u a r d i a n s .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e p e t i t i o n i s founded upon i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n s 72-5-222(1) and 72-5-225 ( 2 ) , MCA. S e c t i o n 72-5-222 (1) s t a t e s :

"The c o u r t may a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n f o r a n unmar- r i e d minor - -l - p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f c u s t o d y ifpal have been t e r m i n a t e d o r suspended -- - circum- s t a.n c e . - p r i o r c o u r t o r d e r . " - - s or (Emphasis sup- plied. )

S e c t i o n 72-5-225(2) provides:

"Upon h e a r i n g , i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t a q u a l i f i e d p e r s o n s e e k s a p p o i n t m e n t , venue i s p r o p e r , t h e r e q u i r e d n o t i c e s have been g i v e n , t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of 72-5-222 have been m e t , and t h e w e l f a r e and b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e minor w i l l be s e r v e d by t h e r e q u e s t e d appointment, it s h a l l make t h e appointment. - o t h e r c a s e s t h e c o u r t may d i s m i s s t h e &- roceedings -- o r make any o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n of :he m a t t e r --- s e r v e the i n t e r e z that w i l l best - -e minor." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) of t h

R e s o l u t i o n of t h i s case r e s t s on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a c e d on t h e above s t a t u t e s and more p a r t i c u l a r l y , on t h i s Court's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e phrase " a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of custody ."

Although t h e r e i s no Montana c a s e law which f o r o u r

p u r p o s e s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e r p r e t s t h e above s t a t u t e s , a p p e l - l a n t s c i t e and r e l y on a r e c e n t Montana case, I n r e Guardian-

s h i p of Evans ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mon t . , 587 P.2d 372, 35 S t - R e p . 1768, a s b e i n g d i s p o s i t i v e h e r e . A c l o s e look a t Evans r e v e a l s i t i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . The problem of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was n o t r e a c h e d i n Evans.

Appellants cite various cases f o r t h e proposition t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s h o u l d a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n whenever n e c e s -s a r y o r convenient f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d : I n re Henwood's G u a r d i a n s h i p ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 49 Cal.2d 639, 320 P.2d 1; San Diego County Dept. o f Pub. Welf. v. S u p e r i o r County (1972), 1 0 1 Cal.Rptr. 541, 496 P. 2d 453; I n r e C.M.D. (Del. 1 9 6 9 ) , 256 A.2d 266. These c a s e s , however, a r e e a s i l y d i s -tinguishable. They i n v o l v e d i f f e r e n t s t a t u t o r y g u i d e l i n e s f o r g u a r d i a n s h i p t h a n t h o s e w e a r e c o n s i d e r i n g i n Montana. There a r e , however, two c a s e s from Arizona c o n s t r u i n g t h a t s t a t e ' s g u a r d i a n s h i p s t a t u t e s which a r e i d e n t i c a l t o Montana's.

The f i r s t i s Morales v . Glenn ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 1 4 A r i z . 327, 560 P.2d 1234. I n Morales t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e two minor c h i l d r e n i n v o l v e d w a s , p u r s u a n t t o a d i v o r c e d e c r e e , lodged i n the father. I n 1976 t h e f a t h e r d i e d , and t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s assumed c u s t o d y of t h e two c h i l d r e n . A request f o r c u s t o d y by t h e mother w a s made t o t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s , which r e q u e s t was r e f u s e d . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e grandmother p e t i t i o n e d f o r guardianship of t h e c h i l d r e n a l l e g i n g t h a t a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s of c u s t o d y had been t e r m i n a t e d by c o u r t order. The mother r e g a i n e d c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d r e n t h r o u g h a h a b e a s c o r p u s p r o c e e d i n g and moved t o d i s m i s s t h e g u a r d i a n -s h i p proceedings. T h i s motion w a s d e n i e d , and t h e mother

appealed. The A r i z o n a c o u r t found t h e m o t h e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f c u s t o d y had n o t been t e r m i n a t e d by t h e d i v o r c e

d e c r e e o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s and h e l d t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t g r a n t i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . The c o u r t went on t o s t a t e : "The P r o b a t e C o u r t d o e s n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n

t o award c u s t o d y when c u s t o d y by o p e r a t i o n o f t h e law . . . o r by c o u r t o r d e r . . . has a l r e a d y been d e t e r m i n e d . "

M o r a l e s , 560 P.2d a t 1237, 1238.

I n M c N e a l v. Mahoney ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 117 A r i z . 543, 574 P.2d 31, t h e c o u r t , c i t i n g Morales , h e l d t h a t where t h e f a t h e r ' s c u s t o d y r i g h t s had n o t been t e r m i n a t e d by c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r by h i s c o n d i t i o n a l d e l i v e r y o f t h e c h i l d t o g r a n d p a r e n t s , t h e appointment o f t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s a s temporary g u a r d i a n s f o r t h e c h i l d was improper and " t h e t r i a l judge was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a p p o i n t e v e n a temporary g u a r d i a n f o r Cindy." McNeal, 574 P.2d a t 35.

I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e custody of P.J.D. was e s t a b -l i s h e d by c o u r t o r d e r o n A p r i l 24, 1969, when permanent l e g a l custody w i t h r i g h t t o c o n s e n t t o a d o p t i o n of P . J . D . was awarded t o SRS. Permanent c u s t o d y o f a c h i l d i s d e f i n e d i n ARM S46-2.6 ( 2 ) -S650 (1)( b ) a s :

". . . t h e l e g a l s t a t u s c r e a t e d by a n o r d e r o f t h e y o u t h c o u r t , t h a t g i v e s a p e r s o n o r agency t h e r i g h t and d u t y t o t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f a y o u t h w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y t o con- s e n t t o t h e a d o p t i o n of s a i d youth. This s e v e r s t h e r i g h t s and d u t i e s o f t h e n a t u r a l parent(s) t o the child."

Further, " [ t l r a n s f e r of l e g a l custody of a c h i l d s h a l l

i n c l u d e g u a r d i a n s h i p of any a s s e t s o r e s t a t e of t h e c h i l d . . ." S e c t i o n 41-3-406(4), MCA.

I n e f f e c t , by making s u c h a n o r d e r , t h e c o u r t g r a n t s a l l t h e r i g h t s o f t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t t o SRS. SRS, t h u s , becomes r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e c a r e , f e e d i n g , and c o n t r o l o f

the child. To provide for the best interests of and protect the welfare of a child, SRS attempts to place the child "in a stabilized setting such as an adoptive home or permanent foster care home which will promote the development of a psychological parent-child relationship." ARM S46-2.6(2)- S640 (3)(c)(i). As unacceptable as it may sound, some of the children will never be adopted. Instead of having to institutionalize these children, SRS licenses foster parents, people who want to care for children but are either ineligible to adopt or cannot afford to adopt. When a child is placed in permanent foster home care, as P.J.D. was here, SRS provides certain services including: counseling services to child and foster parents; referral services when appropriate; arrange for continued education of the child as appropriate to his age and abilities; arrange for medical services for the child; and open foster home payments for board, room and personal necessities. ARM S46-2.6(2)-S6020. These services are in keeping with the duty placed upon SRS when it is granted legal custody of a child. The responsibilities and duties

charged to SRS are similar to the ones charged to natural parents. The only difference is that to care for a child, SRS, in promoting a natural instead of institutional environ-

ment for the child, must assign the everyday duties of care and feeding to foster parents like the appellants. By such

assignment, however, SRS does not forego any of the duties it was charged by court order to carry out; it merely assigns the duties so they will be carried out in a more natural environment. SRS is still responsible for the youth's care and must keep a constant vigil to assure that the youth's best interests are being served. This duty is so strict

b e c a u s e , i n e f f e c t , SRS i s charged w i t h overcoming any ille f f e c t s t h e d e p r i v a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s n a t u r a l p a r e n t s may have had on t h e c h i l d .

While i t i s t r u e t h a t t h e permanent f o s t e r p a r e n t s , when p l a c e d i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , assume t h e r o l e of p a r e n t s and can i n f a c t become t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l p a r e n t s o f t h e c h i l d , t h i s d o e s n o t change t h e l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c h i l d and SRS. "A c h i l d c a n n o t be a d v e r s e l y p o s s e s s e d a s can a p i e c e of r e a l p r o p e r t y . " I n t h e Matter of F i s h (1977) Mont. -, 569 P.2d 924, 928, 3 4 St.Rep. 1080, 1085.

Appellants argue t h a t t h e phrase " a l l parental r i g h t s o f c u s t o d y " from s e c t i o n 72-5-222(1), MCA, w a s i n t e n d e d t o encompass o n l y " p a r e n t a l r i g h t s " of n a t u r a l p a r e n t s and t h e r e f o r e , t h e r i g h t s g r a n t e d t o SRS when i t w a s awarded permanent c u s t o d y o f P . J . D . a r e incapable of t h e D i s t r i c t Court's j u r i s d i c t i o n t o appoint a guardian. This contention i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s o r by t h e l a w .

I n l i g h t o f t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s p l a c e d on SRS, t h e r e can be l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t i t was awarded p a r e n t a l r i g h t s t o c u s t o d y s i m i l a r t o t h a t of a n a t u r a l p a r e n t . There a l s o can be l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t t h e p h r a s e " a l l p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f c u s t o d y " i n c l u d e s t h e r i g h t s awarded t o SRS. This is the logical result. To c o n s t r u e t h e above p h r a s e t o i n c l u d e o n l y n a t u r a l p a r e n t s would c r e a t e problems t h a t a p p e l l a n t s f a i l t o t a k e i n t o account. I f only natural p a r e n t s ' r i g h t s were p r o t e c t e d , i t would mean t h a t a guardi a n c o u l d be a p p o i n t e d f o r a c h i l d w i t h a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s , s o l e l y b e c a u s e t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s ' r i g h t s had been t e r -minated. One can h a r d l y a r g u e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d such a r e s u l t . SRS, i n r e a l i t y , t a k e s t h e p l a c e of t h e a d o p t i v e p a r e n t by s e e i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s n e e d s are t a k e n c a r e o f , a l b e i t by f o s t e r p a r e n t s .

The p h r a s e " p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f c u s t o d y " t h e r e f o r e i n c l u d e s t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f b o t h a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s and SRS when i t i s awarded c u s t o d y .

The r i g h t s h e l d by SRS h e r e a r e permanent i n n a t u r e and have n o t been t e r m i n a t e d . This being t h e case, t h e c o u r t was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a p p o i n t a g u a r d i a n u n d e r s e c t i o n 72-5-225(2), MCA. It did not e r r i n dismissing appellants' petition.

One o t h e r p o i n t n e e d s t o be d i s c u s s e d . Because t h e

p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f P.J.D. were n o t t e r m i n a t e d , t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e o f s e c t i o n 72-5-225 ( 2 ) may come i n t o p l a y . This

sentence reads: "In other cases the court m a y dismiss the

proceedings o r - - make any o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n o f -e m a t t e r t h a t - th w i l l b e s t s e r v e t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e minor." (Emphasis

added.) The l a n g u a g e o f t h i s s e n t e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s w i t h i n t h e c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n i n such a s i t u a t i o n t o e i t h e r d i s m i s s t h e p r o c e e d i n g o r make some o t h e r d i s p o s i t i o n . Here, t h e c o u r t chose t o dismiss t h e proceeding. In the absence of abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , t h i s Court w i l l n o t a l t e r such a decision. I n r e Gore ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont. , 570 P.2d 1110, 3 4 S t - R e p . 1179.

I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a n a t t o r n e y was a p p o i n t e d t o p r o t e c t P.J.D.'s interests. I n h i s b r i e f t o t h i s Court, he

states: " I t appears t o m e t h a t t h e d i v i s i o n of a u t h o r i t y between t h e f o s t e r p a r e n t s and t h e Department 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 i n t h e P . J . D . m a t t e r h a s been s u f - f i c i e n t l y compatible s o t h a t t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d have been l o o k e d after. The d e p a r t m e n t h a s p r o v i d e d a l l m e d i c a l c a r e , f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e and so- c i a l s e r v i c e s s u p p o r t t o P.J.D. t h a t have appeared t o be necessary."

W e have no f a c t r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e , s o w e have no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t SRS w i l l remove t h e c h i l d from i t s f o s t e r parents. Nor i s t h e r e a n y i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e c h i l d s h o u l d b e r e c e i v i n g a d d i t i o n a l care which SRS r e f u s e s t o p r o v i d e . I t a l s o a p p e a r s t h a t SRS h a s a g r e e d t o g r a n t a u t h o r i t y t o t h e f o s t e r p a r e n t s t o a u t h o r i z e emergency m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t . Apparently, t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d a r e being served here.

T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t t h e r e a r e no l o n g t e r m f o s t e r placements, s u c h a s t h e c a s e h e r e , i n which c h a n g e s o f s t a t u s may b e d e s i r a b l e . But t o i n t e r p r e t t h e s t a t u t e as a b l a n k e t permission f o r such i s overlooking t h e p o s s i b l e m i s c h i e f i n v o l v e d i n s h o r t t e r m c a s e s by t h e less s i n c e r e o f t h o s e among u s . T h e r e f o r e , any change i n t h e r u l e s as w e have a p p l i e d them must come from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a f t e r l o n g and s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n and a d e q u a t e s a f e g u a r d s a r e i n s t a l l e d f o r the benefit of the f o s t e r children.

The judgment o f d i s m i s s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s affirmed.

4- L/L/,A Justice 2 W e concur:

7~-efl, @ & 4 , Chief J u s t i c e

-4- ustices