APPLICATION OF CONLEY v WALDEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA I N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF MELVIN CONLEY and RUBY F PERSHALL, P e t i t i o n e r s , f o r a W r i t o f Habeas Corpus t o I n q u i r e i n t o t h e Cause o f D e t e n t i o n o f CHRISTINA M E A CONLEY (INNIS), EDGAR MELVIN CONLEY (INNIS) and DALE W Y E COMLEY (INNIS), P e t i t i o n e r s , AN -vsLOIS INNIS WALDEN, Defendant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k D Shanstrom, 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 : Kent R D o u g l a s s , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. H a r r i s o n , Loendorf a n d P o s t o n , H e l e n a , Montana. James T H a r r i s o n , Jr a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana. F o r Respondent: J o s e p h T S w i n d l e h u r s t a r g u e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. Submitted: Decided : Filed: APR -73d w March 6 , 1975 APR - 7 1975 Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Park County, denying a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e possession and custody of t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n i n a habeas corpus proceeding. P e t i t i o n e r s Melvin Conley and Ruby F. P e r s h a l l a r e t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s of C h r i s t i n a Mae, born J u l y 3 , 1960; Edgar Melvin, born January 15, 1965; and Dale Wayne, born October 8 , 1962. Respondent i s Lois I n n i s Walden t h e maternal stepgrandmother of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e widow o f J e s s e I n n i s , f a t h e r of Ruby F. P e r s h a l l , p e t i t i o n e r herein. P e t i t i o n e r s t e s t i f i e d t h e y a r e members of a r e l i g i o u s group headed by A l f r e d F. P e r s h a l l , t h e p r e s e n t husband of p e t i t i o n e r Ruby. The q u e s t i o n o f t h e a n t i q u i t y of t h e r e l i g i o n w a s r a i s e d a t t h e h e a r i n g and p e t i t i o n e r Melvin Conley t e s t i f i e d h i s g r a n d f a t h e r had " s t a r t e d a l l t h i n g s i n common way back". The group now makes i t s h e a d q u a r t e r s i n a t r a i l e r c o u r t i n Yuma, Arizona, and t h e male members a r e i n t h e masonry b u s i n e s s t o g e t h e r . Respondent Lois I n n i s Walden i s t h e s i s t e r of A l f r e d , Robert and Charley P e r s h a l l and t h e a u n t of p e t i t i o n e r Melvin. From p e t i t i o n e r s ' testimony i t appears t h a t a l l t h e male members of t h e group have exchanged wives d u r i n g t h e l a s t e i g h t y e a r s . At t h e time of t h e h e a r i n g t h e family groupings were: a) A l f r e d F. P e r s h a l l i s married t o p e t i t i o n e r Ruby, ex-wife o f p e t i t i o n e r Melvin Conley . b) C h a r l e s P e r s h a l l i s married t o Donna, A l f r e d ' s ex-wife. c) Robert P e r s h a l l i s married t o C a t h e r i n e , C h a r l e y ' s ex-wife. d) P e t i t i o n e r Melvin Conley i s married t o John Powell's ( a n o t h e r group member) ex-wife J e s s i e . T h i s marriage i s t h e most r e c e n t w i t h i n t h e group and took p l a c e i n August 1972. Sometime prior to 1966 petitioner Ruby, while still married to Melvin, began living with Alfred Pershall and became pregnant by him. Melvin testified: That he and Ruby were not getting along and he discussed the situation with his Uncle Alfred and as a result Ruby went to live with Alfred, That he, Melvin, obtained a divorce from Ruby on the grounds of incompatibility, not adultery, and he was given custody of their three children. Melvin then left California, where he had obtained the divorce, and went to Plattsburg, Missouri where his Uncle Robert lived. There he lived with Catherine Pershall, Charley's ex-wife and ~obert'spresent wife. He took the family to Kansas City where they moved in with in-laws. About this time, June 1967, respondent and her then husband Jesse Innis became concerned about the children's welfare and reported the situation to the Missouri welfare department, of Clinton County. That office had the children picked up in Kansas City and delivered into the custody of their grandparents, Jesse and Lois Innis. On June 6, 1967, the circuit court of Clinton County, Missouri, issued an order granting temporary custody of the children to the county welfare department and that department placed the children in the care and custody of respondent and her husband, Jesse Innis. Petitioner Melvin Conley had notice of the hearing held by the court before it granted custody of the children to the welfare department of Clinton County and was actually present, though later in 1972, he told another judge in Missouri that he did not have notice, nor was he present. On or about that same time petitioner Melvin moved into the Innis home and lived there for about a year. He paid $30 a week for support of the children until February or 14arch 1968. The Innis' purchased a truck from Melvin with the understanding that the support payments would go to the payments on the truck. Petitioner Melvin did some work about the Innis farm and in the house. In June 1968, petitioner Melvin moved to Kansas City leaving the children at the 1nnis'. A month later he left Kansas City, removed t h e t r u c k from t h e I n n i s garage d u r i n g t h e n i g h t , and d e p a r t e d f o r d e s t i n a t i o n s unknown. From t h a t d a t e , u n t i l t h e middle of 1973, he made no a t t e m p t t o support t h e c h i l d r e n o r v i s i t them, o r t o a d v i s e t h e I n n i s ' o f h i s whereabouts. From t h e f a l l of 1967, p e t i t i o n e r Ruby P e r s h a l l , t h e c h i l d r e n ' s "devoted mother" knew h e r c h i l d r e n were wards of t h e Missouri c o u r t and were l i v i n g and being c a r e d f o r by h e r f a t h e r and stepmother. From t h a t time t o t h e time o f t h e habeas corpus h e a r i n g , s h e knew where h e r c h i l d r e n were b u t made no s e r i o u s a t t e m p t t o c o n t a c t , correspond w i t h , t e l e p h o n e , v i s i t , n o r support h e r t h r e e c h i l d r e n . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t l e t t e r s she s e n t were r e t u r n e d b u t respondent denied such l e t t e r s were r e c e i v e d and t h a t t h a t s h e had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h r e t u r n i n g them, i f sent. Testimony given a t t h e h e a r i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t p e t i t i o n e r ' s f a t h e r , J e s s e I n n i s , d i d n o t approve o f t h e r e l i g i o u s group and t h e a l l e g e d f a c t t h a t f o r n i c a t i o n and a d u l t e r y were p r a c t i c e d by t h e group. Testimony given by C h r i s t i n a , t h e o l d e s t c h i l d , i n d i c a t e d t h e group p r a c t i c e d c r u e l and unusual punishments upon t h e c h i l d r e n when t h e y were of t e n d e r y e a r s . She t e s t i f i e d she was put i n a gunny s a c k , by e i t h e r C a t h e r i n e o r Donna, and swung around; t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were put i n t o garbage p i t s a t n i g h t and t o l d t h e r e were snakes i n i t . Other punishments c o n s i s t e d of p u t t i n g a c h i l d ' s head under w a t e r f o r what seemed a long p e r i o d ; C h r i s t i n a t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e r mother, p e t i t i o n e r Ruby, d i d t h i s . Pc a i.h3,r-Mfired P e r s h a l l t e s t i f i e d : group was That t h e name of t h e r e l i g i o u s he Church of t h e F i r s t ~ o r n "and i t o r i g i n a t e d i n Amsterdam, Idaho, where t h e e l d e r b r o t h e r n l i v e d . That he went down t o Yuma t o s e e what kind o f a m i n i s t e r h i s u n c l e Alfred was and t o f i n d o u t more o r less what was going on, a t t h e u r g i n g of h i s mother and because o f t h e Ifyapping" of h i s wife Catherine. That he went t o f i n d o u t i f t h e charges of c h i l d abuse, f o r n i c a t i o n and a d u l t e r y were t r u e and b e i n g p r a c t i c e d by men claiming t o b e m i n i s t e r s of t h e gospel. That he moved i n t o t h e g r o u p ' s t r a i l e r c o u r t and l i v e d t h e r e f o r about s i x months, O d i r e c t examination he t e s t i f i e d he found no c h i l d abuse, n f o r n i c a t i o n m r a d u l t e r y among t h e members of t h e r e l i g i o u s group l i v i n g a t t h e t r a i l e r c o u r t , y e t on cross-examination he admitted f i l i n g charges a g a i n s t h i s b r o t h e r s on t h o s e v a r i o u s charges. He wrote t o a b r o t h e r i n Oregon t h a t i t was i n t e r e s t i n g t o g e t up e a r l y i n t h e morning "to s e e which chicken came o u t of which hen house". He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h o s e c h a r g e s were dropped because he d i d n o t a c t u a l l y s e e anything t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e charges. I n November 1971 J e s s e I n n i s , t h e c h i l d r e n ' s n a t u r a l g r a n d f a t h e r , d i e d i n Missouri. Some s i x months l a t e r respondent, t h e widow of J e s s e I n n i s , moved t o W i l s a l l , Montana, where she now r e s i d e s . Since coming t o Montana, s h e has remarried t o one Arthur Walden. Before moving t o Montana respondent r e c e i v e d an o r d e r d a t e d March 20, 1972, from t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t of C l i n t o n County, j u v e n i l e d i v i s i o n , g i v i n g h e r custody and g r a n t i n g h e r permission t o remove t h e c h i l d r e n from Missouri t o Montana. O May 15, 1972, t h a t same c o u r t n e n t e r e d i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n g respondent permission t o i n s t i t u t e adoption proceedings i n Montana f o r t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n . A petition f o r adoption was f i l e d by respondent i n Park County, Montana, June 6 , 1972, and a d e c r e e of a d o p t i o n was i s s u e d on June 27, 1972. The Park County d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t p e t i t i o n e r s ' consent f o r t h e adoption was n o t n e c e s s a r y s i n c e t h e c h i l d r e n were d e c l a r e d dependent and n e g l e c t e d c h i l d r e n by t h e s t a t e of Missouri and t h a t Missouri had g r a n t e d c a r e , custody and c o n t r o l t o respondent. Three months l a t e r , on September 25, 1972, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t of C l i n t o n County, Missouri, j u v e n i l e d i v i s i o n , e n t e r e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g a s i d e a s void, ab i n i t i o , a l l previous o r d e r s e n t e r e d by i t concerning t h e c h i l d r e n f o r t h e reason t h a t n o t i c e - h a d n o t been given the parents, p e t i t i o n e r s here. While respondent was n o t i f i e d of t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e Missouri c o u r t ' s o r d e r s , she d i d n o t have funds t o r e t a i n Missouri counsel and she f a i l e d t o appear pro s e due t o a f a i l u r e t o g i v e h e r n o t i c e of a postponed hearing date. I n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e r e found t h a t i t was n o t bound by t h e a c t i o n of t h e Missouri c o u r t ; t h a t t h e Montana c o u r t had f u l l j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e adoption and was e n t i t l e d t o r e l y on t h e consent o f t h e Missouri c o u r t , t h e proper a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t consent a t t h e time; t h a t t h e c o u r t was n o t compelled t o honor t h e l a t e r o r d e r r e t r a c t i n g t h e c o n s e n t ; and, f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e l a t e r Missouri proceedings were uncontested and based upon t h e f a l s e a l l e g a t i o n s o f p e t i t i o n e r Melvin Conley t h a t he d i d n o t have n o t i c e , when i n f a c t he was b e f o r e t h e c o u r t when custody was lodged w i t h t h e ~ n n i s ' . The c o u r t went f u r t h e r i n i t s conclusions and found abandonment by r e a s o n o f p e t i t i o n e r s ' f a i l u r e t o do a n y t h i n g f o r t h e c h i l d r e n f o r over f i v e y e a r s . Appellant p e t i t i o n e r s s t a t e t h e i s s u e s t o be: 1) Whether t h e y were e v e r " j u d i c i a l l y d e p r i v e d of t h e (11 custody'' w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 61-205 ( c ) , R.C .M. 2) 1947? I f n o t , were t h e y e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e of t h e a d o p t i o n ? Respondent argues t h a t t h i s i s a habeas corpus proceeding and a p p e l l a n t s a r e a t t e m p t i n g t o u s e habeas corpus t o c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k t h e adoption decree. W a g r e e and w i l l t r e a t t h e m a t t e r e a s i t was brought by a p p e l l a n t s , a s one of habeas corpus seeking t h e custody of t h e c h i l d r e n . Habeas corpus being e q u i t a b l e i n n a t u r e t h e paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h e welfare of t h e children. I n an Oklahoma c h i l d custody c a s e , Mathews v. Grant, (Okla. 1958), 326 P.2d 1043, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t i t was n o t bound t o d e l i v e r t h e custody of a c h i l d t o a p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m a n t b u t must l e a v e i t i n such custody a s t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d appears t o r e q u i r e a t t h e time. Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t found t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s u n f i t t o h a v e m s t a d y of t h e c h i l d r e n and t h a t t h e i r w e l f a r e and b e s s i n t e r e s t s would b e b e s t served by l e a v i n g them w i t h respondent. such f i n d i n g i s convincingly e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e r e c o r d and we n o t e w i t h i n t e r e s t t h a t on a p p e a l p e t i t i o n e r s do n o t a l l e g e t h a t t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n would b e s t be served by t h e t r a n s f e r of custody t o them. T h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d r e n i s t h e r u l e i n Montana r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n R i l e y v. Byrne, 145 Mont. 138, 145, 399 P.2d 980, a c a s e where t h e Court considered t h e w e l f a r e of c h i l d r e n i n r e f u s i n g t o s e t a s i d e a d e c r e e of adoption brought on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e p a r e n t s ' consent was o b t a i n e d by fraud. There t h e Court s a i d "* * t h a t t h e adoption was f o r 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 two minor c h i l d r e n . 11 Whether t h e a c t i o n i s t r e a t e d as habeas corpus o r a p e t i t i o n t o s e t a s i d e a n a d o p t i o n , t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d i s t h e paramount factor. I n a r e c e n t c a s e b e f o r e t h e Supreme Court o f Oklahoma, I n r e Adoption of Graves, (O34.a. 1971), 481 P.2d 136, 138, t h e Court s a i d t h e "welfare of t h e c h i l d i s n o t t o b e ignored i n cons i d e r i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e adoption proceedings." I n an Arizona c a s e , I n r e Adoption of Hammer, 15 Ariz.App. 196, 487 P.2d, 417, 419, i t was s a i d : "* * * Moreover, from a s t r i c t l y humanitarian s t a n d p o i n t , t h e r e must be an end t o t h e emotional s t r e s s and s t r a i n t h a t i s involved i n t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s ' a t t e m p t t o g a i n custody of t h e i r c h i l d . This s t r a i n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a c u t e t o t h e a d o p t i v e c h i l d i t s e l f , who may have e s t a b l i s h e d s t r o n g bonds o f a f f e c t i o n and l o v e f o r t h e a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s , and t o t h e a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s who must s u f f e r t h e s p e c t r e of l o s i n g t h e i r c h i l d . Also, sound r e a s o n s o f p u b l i c p o l i c y demand t h a t o r d e r s of adoption have f i n a l i t y s o a s t o encourage adoption of c h i l d r e n who might otherwise b e homeless. 11 However, once a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s made g i v i n g rise t o a f i n a l o r d e r o f a d o p t i o n , and t h a t new r e l a t i o n s h i p i s allowed t o mature, then t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e should o n l y n u l l i f y t h a t new r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r t h e most cogent reasons. 11 Considering t h e r e c o r d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e r e a r e numerous grounds upon which t h e adoption i t s e l f could have been s u s t a i n e d A p e r i o d of s i x y e a r s of without t h e consent of p e t i t i o n e r s . a b s o l u t e abandonment o f t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n w i t h no s u p p o r t , no c o n t a c t , and no v i s i t s by e i t h e r p a r e n t i s t h e most b a s i c ground. While p e t i t i o n e r s argue t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t made no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g of abandonment and nonsupport a t t h e time of t h e a d o p t i o n , t h e m a t t e r i s one i n e q u i t y and no s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g o f f a c t and conclusion of law a r e r e q u i r e d - - j u s t a decree. The g e n e r a l o b l i g a t i o n s of parenthood i n c l u d e t h e s e minimum standards: 1 ) Express l o v e and a f f e c t i o n f o r t h e c h i l d . 2) Express p e r s o n a l concern over t h e h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d . 3 ) The d u t y t o supply t h e n e c e s s a r y food, c l o t h i n g and medical c a r e . 4 ) The duty t o provide an adequate home. 5 ) A duty t o g i v e s o c i a l and r e l i g i o u s guidance, f a r s h o r t of t h e s e minimum s t a n d a r d s . Here, p e t i t i o n e r s f a l l See: O t t l e y v. H i l l , 21 Utah 2d 396, 446 P.2d 301; Van Orman v. Van Orman, 30 Colo.App. P.2d 81; Neasham v. McNair, 103 Iowa 695, 72 N.W. Parent and C h i l d , 5 s 50-60; 47 A.L.R. 177, 492 773; 59 Am J u r 2d, 110. The Supreme Court of Idaho i n Finn v. Rees, 65 Idaho 181, 141 P.2d 976, 980, a c a s e v e r y s i m i l a r i n f a c t s , i n a habeas corpus p e t i t i o n noted t h e r e was ample evidence of abandonment t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and r e f u s e d t o v a c a t e a d e c r e e of adoption merely because t h e t r i a l c o u r t had premised i t s adoption upon t h e consent of t h e g r e a t grandparents. Of p a r t i c u l a r import i s t h e c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g , c i t i n g an Oregon c a s e , t h a t : $ * Proceedings i n habeas corpus a r e i n t h e n a t u r e ; of a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k , and consequently e r r o r s o r i r r e g u l a r i t i e s which might r e n d e r a 'udgment v o i d a b l e cannot be reached by habeas corpus. 4 11 J ; See a l s o : C o n v i l l e v. Bakke, (Okla.1964), 400 P.2d 179; I n re ~ o e r m a n n ' s E s t a t e , 108 Mont. 386, 91 P.2d 394; Wells v. S t a n g e r , 123 Mont. 26, 207 P.2d 549; I n r e P e p i n ' s E s t a t e , 53 Mont. 240, 163 P. 104. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s order denying t h e p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of habeas corpus w a s c o r r e c t . N p r e j u d i c a l e r r o r having been shown, o t h e o r d e r of t h a t c o u r t i s affirmed. 8 ustice W concur: e Hon. ~ l f E. Coate, D i s t r i c t u Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. M r , J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell, s p e c i a l l y concurring: I concur i n a f f i r m i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of t h e habeas corpus p e t i t i o n . The r e a s o n f o r t h i s s p e c i a l concurrence i s t h a t I do n o t understand t h e b a s i s of t h e m a j o r i t y holding. Is i t based on t h e p r i o r custody o r d e r s o f t h e Missouri c o u r t ? adoption proceedings? O t h e Montana n On an independent a d j u d i c a t i o n o f custody i n t h e habeas corpus proceeding? I n t h i s c a s e n e i t h e r t h e Missouri c o u r t n o r t h e Montana c o u r t i n t h e adoption proceedings had j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e mother. She w a s permanently deprived of h e r p a r e n t a l r i g h t s and h e r c h i l d r e n were adopted by a n o t h e r , a l l w i t h o u t g i v i n g h e r n o t i c e of t h e proceedings and a f f o r d i n g h e r an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard. The u l t i m a t e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e cannot c o r r e c t j u r i s d i c t i o n a l defects. For t h i s r e a s o n I would hold t h e Missouri custody awards and t h e Montana adoption proceedings void. I would hold t h e independent custody a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e Montana c o u r t i n t h e habeas corpus proceeding c o r r e c t and f u l l y supported by t h e evidence, O t h i s b a s i s I would deny t h e p e t i t i o n n f o r habeas corpus. Justice.

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.