MARRIAGE OF MIKKELSON v MIKKELSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14720 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WANDA LOUISE MIKKELSON, Petitioner and Respondent, -vsRICHARD L . MIKKELSON , Respondent and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable C.B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Gary Wilcox, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Berger, Anderson, Sinclair Montana & Murphy, Billings, Submitted on Briefs: Decided : NOV 2 1 193 Sept. 20, 1979 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 . his i s an a p p e a l from a n o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t J of t h e ~ h i r t e e n t h u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , t h e Honorable C . B. Sande p r e s i d i n g . The o r d e r , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 0 , 1979, g r a n t e d Wanda M i k k e l s o n ' s p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e of d i s s o l u t i o n s o a s t o v e s t l e g a l c u s t o d y of t h e minor c h i l d o f t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o w i t h Wanda Mikkelson, r e s p o n d e n t h e r e i n , r a t h e r t h a n w i t h Richard Mikkelson, a p p e l l a n t h e r e i n . The p a r t i e s w e r e m a r r i e d on J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1974, and a c h i l d , M i c h e l l e L a n e t t e , was born on May 11, 1974. I n August 1976 r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r d i s s o l u t i o n r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e of t h e p a r t i e s be d i s s o l v e d and t h a t s h e b e g r a n t e d c u s t o d y o f t h e minor c h i l d . On J u n e 3 , 1977, a decree of d i s s o l u t i o n w a s entered granting l e g a l custody t o appellant . Testimony was c o n t r a d i c t o r y a s t o why c u s t o d y of M i c h e l l e w a s granted t o appellant. Respondent s t a t e d t h a t s h e con- s e n t e d t o g r a n t i n g c u s t o d y t o a p p e l l a n t i n exchange f o r h i s promise t o o b t a i n a h a r d s h i p d i s c h a r g e from t h e Navy s o t h a t t h e p a r t i e s c o u l d a t t e m p t t o r e s o l v e t h e i r problems, most of which w e r e c e n t e r e d around a p p e l l a n t ' s a b s e n c e s from home. A p p e l l a n t d e n i e s t h i s and s t a t e s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t a g r e e d t o g i v e him c u s t o d y a f t e r he t h r e a t e n e d h e r w i t h a c o u r t b a t t l e b e c a u s e of h e r a d u l t e r o u s c o n d u c t . I n May 1978 a p p e l l a n t was g r a n t e d a h a r d s h i p d i s c h a r g e from t h e Navy because r e s p o n d e n t , who had p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l of M i c h e l l e d u r i n g t h i s t i m e , was i n v o l v e d i n a s e r i o u s a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t i n A p r i l 1978. There w a s no d i s p u t e i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t , s i n c e h e r b i r t h , M i c h e l l e h a s been i n t h e c u s t o d y of r e s p o n d e n t w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e t i m e t h e p a r t i e s resided jointly. Upon h i s r e l e a s e from t h e Navy i n A p r i l 1978, a p p e l l a n t r e t u r n e d t o Montana b u t moved t o I n d i a n a p o l i s , I n d i a n a , s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r where he worked, went t o s c h o o l , and w a s r e s i d i n g a t t h e time t h e p r e s e n t c o n f l i c t a r o s e . On Septem- b e r 1 6 , 1978, a p p e l l a n t came t o Roundup, Montana, where respondent w a s l i v i n g w i t h Michelle, o s t e n s i b l y j u s t t o v i s i t h i s daughter. Instead, a f t e r taking c o n t r o l of Michelle under t h e p r e t e n s e of v i s i t i n g r e l a t i v e s i n Roundup f o r a n hour o r s o , a p p e l l a n t r e t u r n e d t o I n d i a n a w i t h h e r . A f t e r t h e above i n c i d e n t , r e s p o n d e n t s o u g h t c o u n s e l and on September 20, 1978, f i l e d a p e t i t i o n t o modify t h e c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n , supp o r t e d by a f f i d a v i t . On t h e b a s i s of t h e p e t i t i o n and a f f i - d a v i t , Judge Sande i s s u e d a n o r d e r d a t e d September 20, 1978, r e q u i r i n g t h e r e t u r n o f t h e c h i l d t o Montana where s h e was t o remain w i t h h e r mother pending t h e f i l i n g of c o u n t e r a f f i d a v i t s and s u b s e q u e n t h e a r i n g s . Appellant refused t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d t o Montana a f t e r b e i n g s e r v e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n and o r d e r on September 26, 1978. P r o c e e d i n g s were commenced by r e s p o n d e n t i n I n d i a n a t o e n f o r c e Judge S a n d e ' s o r d e r of September 20, 1978. A s a r e s u l t , a p p e l l a n t was o r d e r e d i n December 1978 t o r e t u r n M i c h e l l e t o Montana. A h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s was s c h e d u l e d on J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1979. A petition for a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l was f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t (Cause No. 1 4 6 3 5 ) , b u t t h e p e t i t i o n w a s d e n i e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e on J a n u a r y 5 , 1979, t o a l l o w t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o proceed. A h e a r i n g was f i n a l l y h e l d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on J a n u a r y 23, 1979. ~ased on t h e testimony presented a t t h e January 23 hearing, the c o u r t , on F e b r u a r y 20, 1979, g r a n t e d t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d by respond e n t and t r a n s f e r r e d l e g a l c u s t o d y of M i c h e l l e t o h e r . It i s from t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r of F e b r u a r y 20, 1979, t h a t t h i s appeal i s taken. Two i s s u e s a r e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and modify t h e c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n w i t h i n two y e a r s of t h e g r a n t i n g t h e r e o f ? 2. Do t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w and o r d e r of t h e c o u r t modifying t h e c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n of t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n ? The f a c t s i n v o l v e d h e r e i n do n o t p r e s e n t t h e o r d i n a r y s i t u a t i o n found i n c h i l d c u s t o d y c a s e s . Here, t h e "non- c u s t o d i a l " mother h a s had a c t u a l , p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f t h e d a u g h t e r w h i l e t h e " c u s t o d i a l " f a t h e r was i n t h e Navy. Even a f t e r t h e f a t h e r r e c e i v e d a h a r d s h i p d i s c h a r g e from t h e Navy, o s t e n s i b l y t o c a r e f o r h i s d a u g h t e r , t h e mother cont i n u e d t o have p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y u n t i l t h e d a u g h t e r was t a k e n , w i t h o u t t h e m o t h e r ' s knowledge o r c o n s e n t , t o I n d i a n a by a p p e l l a n t . S e c t i o n 40-4-219, MCA, i s t h e s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y au- t h o r i t y f o r a c t i o n s t o modify c u s t o d y awards. It prohibits s u c h a c t i o n s f o r two y e a r s a f t e r e n t r y of a c u s t o d y award " u n l e s s t h e c o u r t p e r m i t s i t t o be made on t h e b a s i s of a f f i d a v i t s t h a t t h e r e i s reason t o believe t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment may endanger s e r i o u s l y h i s p h y s i c a l , mental, moral, o r emotional h e a l t h . " MCA S e c t i o n 40-4-219(1), . F u r t h e r , s e c t i o n 40-4-220, MCA, provides: "A p a r t y s e e k i n g a temporary c u s t o d y o r d e r o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of a c u s t o d y d e c r e e s h a l l s u b m i t , t o g e t h e r w i t h h i s moving p a p e r s , a n a f f i d a v i t s e t t i n g f o r t h f a c t s supporting the r e q u e s t e d o r d e r o r m o d i f i c a t i o n and s h a l l g i v e n o t i c e , t o g e t h e r w i t h a copy o f h i s a f f i d a v i t , t o o t h e r p a r t i e s t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g , who may f i l e o p p o s i n g a f f i d a v i t s . The c o u r t s h a l l deny t h e motion u n l e s s it f i n d s t h a t a d e q u a t e c a u s e f o r h e a r i n g t h e motion i s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e a f f i d a v i t s , i n which c a s e i t s h a l l s e t a d a t e f o r h e a r i n g on a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e why t h e r e q u e s t e d o r d e r o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d n o t be g r a n t e d . " I n t h i s c a s e respondent f i l e d her p e t i t i o n f o r modification of c u s t o d y w i t h i n t h e p r o h i b i t e d two-year p e r i o d . She a l s o f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t a t t e m p t i n g t o show t h a t h e r a c t i o n f i t w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e two-year p r o h i b i t i o n . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o b r i n g r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t made no f i n d i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t e n v i r o n ment e n d a n g e r s s e r i o u s l y h e r p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l , m o r a l , o r emotional health. Further, a p p e l l a n t contends t h a t t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e a f f i d a v i t s deprived t h e c o u r t of j u r i s diction. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e temporary c u s t o d y o r d e r was i n v a l i d b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o r have a chance t o f i l e a n o p p o s i n g a f f i d a v i t a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 40-4-220, MCA. W e disagree. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r e x p a r t e s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of r e s p o n d e n t ' s a f f i d a v i t , d i r e c t i n g a p p e l l a n t t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d t o h e r mother pending t h e f a t h e r ' s f i l i n g o f a f f i d a v i t s opposing t h e p e t i t i o n and any s u b s e q u e n t h e a r i n g s on t h e p e t i t i o n . T h i s o r d e r was made b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t judge found t h e r e was "good c a u s e appearing therefor." W e must assume t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a s c o g n i z a n t of t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s which had t o be m e t b e f o r e i t c o u l d o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n . Because t h i s o r d e r was i s s u e d e x p a r t e , on t h e b a s i s of r e s p o n d e n t ' s a f f i d a v i t which was s u f f i c i e n t t o b r i n g t h e motion w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e two-year p r o h i b i t i o n , w e h o l d t h a t t h e c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and modify I n t h e f u t u r e , however, w e would s u g g e s t t h e c u s t o d y award. t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s be made c l e a r and d i r e c t by t h e c o u r t , r a t h e r than requiring reference t o supporting a f f i d a v i t s . Montana s t a t u t e s c o n c e r n i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n of c u s t o d y a r e s p e c i f i c i n t h e i r requirements. " C o u n s e l ' s f a i l u r e t o com- p l y s t r i c t l y with these s t a t u t o r y r e q u i s i t e s , a s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , i s i n v i t a t i o n t o e r r o n e o u s r u l i n g s and d e t e r m i n a t i o n s p r e j u d i c i a l b o t h t o t h e i r c l i e n t s ' r i g h t s and t o t h e system o f j u s t i c e of which t h e y a r e g u a r d i a n s . " v . Billman ( 1 9 7 8 ) , St.Rep. 1396. Mont. , Lehman 584 P.2d 662, 666, 35 While t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t may have a c t e d h a s t i l y i n g r a n t i n g temporary c u s t o d y , r e s p o n d e n t ' s a f f i d a v i t was s u f f i c i e n t on i t s f a c e t o b r i n g t h e motion w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e two-year p r o h i b i t i o n . Further, the D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d a l l o w a p p e l l a n t ample t i m e t o f i l e opp o s i n g a f f i d a v i t s b e f o r e i t s e t t h e m a t t e r f o r h e a r i n g , and a p p e l l a n t w a s s e r v e d w i t h r e s p o n d e n t ' s p e t i t i o n and a f f i d a v i t a s w e l l a s t h e o r d e r w i t h i n s i x d a y s of t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n . The temporary o r d e r by i t s v e r y n a t u r e d i d n o t permanently a f f e c t t h e r i g h t s of e i t h e r of t h e parties. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t f a i l t o s u s t a i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w and o r d e r modifying c u s t o d y . The r e l e v a n t law r e g a r d i n g m o d i f i c a t i o n of c u s t o d y de- crees i s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 40-4-219(2), MCA. T h i s sec- t i o n provides: " ( 2 ) The c o u r t s h a l l n o t modify a p r i o r c u s t o d y d e c r e e u n l e s s it f i n d s , upon t h e b a s i s of f a c t s t h a t have a r i s e n s i n c e t h e p r i o r d e c r e e o r t h a t w e r e unknown t o t h e c o u r t a t t h e t i m e o f e n t r y o f t h e p r i o r d e c r e e , t h a t a change has o c c u r r e d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c h i l d o r h i s cust o d i a n and t h a t t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n i s n e c e s s a r y t o s e r v e t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e c h i l d . In applying these standards the c o u r t s h a l l r e t a i n t h e custodian appointed pursuant t o t h e p r i o r decree unless: " (a) t h e c u s t o d i a n a g r e e s t o t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n ; " ( b ) t h e c h i l d h a s been i n t e g r a t e d i n t o t h e family of t h e p e t i t i o n e r with consent of t h e custodian; o r " ( c ) t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment e n d a n g e r s s e r i o u s l y h i s p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l , m o r a l , o r emot i o n a l h e a l t h and t h e harm l i k e l y t o be c a u s e d by a change o f environment i s outweighed by i t s a d v a n t a g e s t o him." Here, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found t h a t t h e c h i l d ' s p r e s e n t environment and t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e f a t h e r i n removing h e r from t h e o n l y environment s h e had e v e r known s i n c e b i r t h s e r i o u s l y endangered h e r p h y s i c a l , m e n t a l , moral and e m o t i o n a l h e a l t h . Such a f i n d i n g i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o any c o u r t o r d e r changing c u s t o d y under s e c t i o n 4 0 - 4 - 2 1 9 ( 2 ) ( c ) , MCA. G i a n o t t i v. McCracken ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont. , 569 P.2d The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d h e r e d t o t h e p r o p e r s t a t u t o r y s t a n d a r d s as r e q u i r e d , and w e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . / W concur: e 'ir,4?$,t P'4 Chief J u s i c e . 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.
