No. 80-454

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN

1981

I N THE MATTER OF J. L. F. a n d H. A. F.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, I n a n d f o r t h e County o f Y e l l o w s t o n e , The I i o n o r a b l e Diane G. B a r z , 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 Appellant:

P e t e r s o n Law O f f i c e s , B i l l i n g s , Montana

F o r Respondent :

H a r o l d H a n s e r , County A t t o r n e y , B i l l i n g s , Montana O l s e n , C h r i s t e n s e n & G a n n e t t , B i l l i n g s , Montana

S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : F e b r u a r y 25, 1 9 8 1

Decided : APR 6 -~aa Filed : -- WPR c - l$M 6" ' 7 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .

T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s from a c u s t o d i a l h e a r i n g h e l d in t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h e Honorable Diane

G. Barz p r e s i d i n g . The c a s e was t r i e d on t h e p e t i t i o n o f t h e S t a t 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) t o h a v e JLF and HAF d e c l a r e d y o u t h s i n need o f c a r e and to have their permanent care, custody and control

awarded t o t h e S t a t e o f Montana w i t h a u t h o r i t y t o c o n s e n t t o

their adoption. The natural mother was present at the h e a r i n g and r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . The p u t a t i v e f a t h e r o f JLF predeceased t h e h e a r i n g , and t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r o f HAF

was s e r v e d w i t h l e g a l n o t i c e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g b u t f a i l e d t o

appear. F o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court granted the relief requested by SRS and entered

judgment a c c o r d i n g l y . The n a t u r a l m o t h e r now a p p e a l s . JLF, a boy, was b o r n on J a n u a r y 7 , 1974. A t that time, h i s mother, t h e a p p e l l a n t , was s i x t e e n y e a r s o f a g e ,

unmarried and living with her mother. JLF and a p p e l l a n t remained i n her m o t h e r ' s house f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x months

before moving into their own apartment. Appellant's i n d e p e n d e n t l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t , h o w e v e r , was o n l y t e m p o r a r y , and she s o o n moved back with her mother. This pattern c o n t i n u e d f o r t h e n e x t few y e a r s - - a p p e l l a n t moving i n and out of her mother's house, changing her residence on

numerous occasions. During this period, appellant of t e n c a l l e d upon h e r m o t h e r t o p r o v i d e b a b y s i t t i n g s e r v i c e s , in a d d i t i o n t o placing JLF with her for extended p e r i o d s of time . I n May 1977 a p p e l l a n t s u f f e r e d a n e r v o u s breakdown

and was a d m i t t e d t o t h e p s y c h i a t r i c ward o f t h e Deaconess Hospital in Billings, Montana. A p p e l l a n t was h o s p i t a l i z e d

f o r s i x weeks a f t e r which s h e was r e l e a s e d t o a l o c a l m e n t a l

h e a l t h g r o u p home f o r e i g h t a d d i t i o n a l weeks. As a result of t h e breakdown, a verbal a g r e e m e n t was r e a c h e d w i t h SRS

whereby appellant allowed JLF to stay with his maternal

grandmother until it was determined that appellant could

adequately provide for h i s care.

A p p e l l a n t was r e h o s p i t a l i z e d d u e t o h e r m e n t a l h e a l t h

in October 1977 and again in November 1978; thus, JLF

continued to remain primarily in the care of his

grandmother. A p p e l l a n t was again hospitalized for mental

h e a l t h r e a s o n s i n A u g u s t 1 9 7 9 , a f t e r becoming p r e g n a n t w i t h

t h e i n f a n t HAF.

HAF was born February 5, 1980. Because SRS was

concerned over appellant's ability to care for a newborn

baby, t e m p o r a r y i n v e s t i g a t i v e a u t h o r i t y was a p p l i e d f o r and

g r a n t e d on F e b r u a r y 6 , 1 9 8 0 . The i n f a n t HAF was p l a c e d i n a

f o s t e r home upon h e r r e l e a s e from t h e h o s p i t a l .

JLF, now s i x y e a r s o f age, continued t o r e s i d e with

h i s grandmother. I n March 1 9 8 0 , h o w e v e r , a p p e l l a n t demanded

t h a t he be r e t u r n e d t o h e r c u s t o d y . Not h a v i n g any t y p e o f

legal custody or control at the time, the SRS c a s e w o r k e r

r e t u r n e d JLF t o h i s m o t h e r ' s home on a s u p e r v i s e d b a s i s .

I n A p r i l 1980 SRS f i l e d t h e p e t i t i o n t o h a v e JLF and

HAF declared youths in need of care. A hearing on the

petition was held in July 1980. During this time JLF

remained under the care of appellant on a continued

supervised basis. The p e t i t i o n was e v e n t u a l l y g r a n t e d , and

judgment was entered on September 24, 1980, awarding the

p e r m a n e n t c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f the children t o the S t a t e o f Montana. The s o l e issue presented on appeal is whether the

District Court abused its discretion by terminating the parental rights of appellant and awarding the permanent

c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l o f J L F and HAF 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 .

This Court has held t h a t t h e burden of proof in a t e r m i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s a c t i o n i s upon t h e S t a t e t o

p r o v e by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a t i s s u e a r e abused o r n e g l e c t e d . See Matter of J L B (1979),

Mont. , 594 P.2d 1 1 2 7 , 36 S t . R e p . 896. This Court, however, h a s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t t h e p r i m a r y d u t y of d e c i d i n g t h e proper custody of a c h i l d r e s t s with t h e D i s t r i c t Court. All reasonable presumptions concerning the c o r r e c t n e s s of that court's determination w i l l be made, and t h e d e c i s i o n w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s i t i s shown t h a t t h e

D i s t r i c t Court c l e a r l y abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n . M a t t e r o f LFG

(197911 Mont . , 598 P.2d 1 1 2 5 , 36 S t . R e p . 1547; I n r e G o r e ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 3 2 1 , 570 P.2d 1 1 1 0 . H e r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t J L F and HAF w e r e

y o u t h s i n need o f c a r e and t e r m i n a t e d t h e p a r e n t a l r i g h t s o f appellant. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t b a s e d t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n on a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e n e g l e c t e d and a b u s e d .

In support of the District Court's findings, considerable evidence was presented, including the following: Dr. M a r i a n F. M a r t i n , a c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g i s t who h a s been t r e a t i n g J L F , t e s t i f i e d t h a t when t h e c h i l d was p l a c e d i n t h e c u s t o d y o f a p p e l l a n t i n March 1980 h e began t o show s i g n s of emotional d e t e r i o r a t i o n . Dr. M a r t i n o b s e r v e d t h a t a p a s t p r o b l e m w i t h e n c o p r e s i s had i n c r e a s e d and t h a t JLF

had become f i d g e t y , d i s t r a c t i b l e , s u l l e n and w i t h d r a w n . She a l s o o b s e r v e d t h a t J L F was n o t k e p t c l e a n and had a s t r o n g

odor d u e t o t h e e n c o p r e s i s . Dr. Martin, a l t h o u g h s h e had limited contact with appellant, further t e s t i f i e d t h a t since appellant was failing to provide for the emotional and

p h y s i c a l n e e d s o f J L F , s h e would a l s o b e u n a b l e t o m e e t t h e

n e e d s o f h e r newborn b a b y , H A F . Dr. Ned Tranel, a clinical psychologist who held

t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s e s s i o n s w i t h a p p e l l a n t b e t w e e n J a n u a r y 1980 and F e b r u a r y 1 9 8 0 , t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t was d i a g n o s e d a s a pseudo neurotic schizophrenic and that, although her

c o n d i t i o n may e v e n t u a l l y s t a b i l i z e , i t was n o t l i k e l y t h a t

any i m p r o v e m e n t s c o u l d be made. Dr. T r a n e l was a l s o o f t h e opinion that appellant was suffering from minimal brain disfunction due to drug abuses and, as a result of her overall condition, she would not be able to accurately comprehend o r r e s p o n d t o t h e n e e d s o f h e r c h i l d r e n .

It should be noted that appellant attacks the

c r e d i b i l i t y o f Dr. T r a n e l by p o i n t i n g o u t t h a t i n F e b r u a r y 1980 h e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p p e l l a n t m i g h t be c a p a b l e o f r a i s i n g

one, b u t n o t both, of h e r c h i l d r e n . Dr. T r a n e l t e s t i f i e d , however, that he was merely speculating about the

p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p p e l l a n t r a i s i n g b o t h c h i l d r e n and t h a t a t the time he still had considerable misgivings about her ability to raise e v e n one c h i l d , a l t h o u g h i t was w o r t h a try. A l i c e N i c k o l o f f , t h e c o u n t y s o c i a l worker a s s i g n e d t o work with the family, concurred with Dr. Martin's observations of JLF's deterioration. Nickoloff also attested to appellant's inability to provide for the

physical and emotional needs of her children. In

p a r t i c u l a r , s h e n o t e d a d i s i n t e r e s t by a p p e l l a n t i n g e t t i n g

o u t of bed t o p r e p a r e J L F ' s m e a l s , t o c l e a n him o r t o g e t

him o f f t o school. S h e was a l s o o f the opinion, although

n o t r e c a l l i n g any s p e c i f i c i n c i d e n t bad enough t o remove t h e

child on the spot, that JLF was being neglected, if not

abused.

The children's maternal grandmother testified that

she had observed appellant engage in physically abusive

behavior towards JLF on several different occasions.

Examples o f s u c h b e h a v i o r i n c l u d e d t h e e x c e s s i v e s t r i k i n g o f

t h e c h i l d w i t h a b e l t and a b o a r d , as w e l l as pulling his

h a i r and b i t i n g him a s m e t h o d s o f i m p o s i n g d i s c i p l i n e . The

grandmother further testified that appellant failed to

p r o p e r l y f e e d , c l o t h e and s u p e r v i s e t h e c h i l d .

S e c t i o n 41-3-102, MCA, d e f i n e s abused o r neglected a s

follows:

" ( 2 ) An ' a b u s e d o r n e g l e c t e d c h i l d ' means a c h i l d whose n o r m a l p h y s i c a l o r m e n t a l h e a l t h o r w e l f a r e is harmed o r t h r e a t e n e d w i t h harm by t h e a c t s o r o m i s s i o n s o f h i s p a r e n t o r other person responsible f o r h i s welfare.

" ( 3 ) 'Harm t o a c h i l d ' s h e a l t h o r w e l f a r e ' means t h e harm t h a t o c c u r s whenever t h e parent or other person responsible for t h e c h i l d ' s welfare:

" ( a ) i n f l i c t s o r a l l o w s t o be i n f l i c t e d upon the child physical or mental injury, including i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t of e x c e s s i v e c o r p o r a l punishment;

"(b) ... " ( c ) causes f a i l u r e t o t h r i v e or otherwise f a i l s t o s u p p l y t h e c h i l d w i t h a d e q u a t e food or f a i l s t o supply clothing, shelter, e d u c a t i o n , or h e a l t h c a r e , though f i n a n c i a l l y a b l e t o do s o o r o f f e r e d f i n a n c i a l o r o t h e r r e a s o n a b l e means t o d o s o ; " ( 8 ) ' M e n t a l i n j u r y ' means a n i d e n t i f i a b l e and s u b s t a n t i a l i m p a i r m e n t o f t h e c h i l d ' s i n t e l l e c t u a l or psychological functioning."

Based upon examination of the offered evidence, in

relation t o t h e d e c l a r e d p o l i c y of this State t o promote

normal childhood development and to provide for the

p r o t e c t i o n o f c h i l d r e n whose h e a l t h and w e l f a r e a r e , o r may

be, a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by t h e c o n d u c t o f t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r t h e i r c a r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d J L F and HAF a b u s e d

or neglected as those terms are defined above. Upon

reviewing the record, this Court now finds there is

substantial credible evidence to support the District

Court's conclusion, and, t h u s , a c l e a r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n

h a s n o t been e s t a b l i s h e d .

The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t ~ o u r f ~ a fs i r m e d . i f i ' 2

C "

Justice