ADOPTION OF E S R

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 85-154 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 I N THE PATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF 3. S . R., a minor child. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y of Y e l l o w s t o n e , T h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t H o l m s t r o m , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Herndon, Montana H a r p e r & M u n r o ; J a m e s G. Edmiston, R i , l i n g s , For Respondent: Moses L a w F i r m ; S t e p h e n Moses a n d J a y F. B i l l i n g s , Montana Lansing, S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J u n e 1 9 , 1 9 8 5 Decided: Filed: SEP 2 4.11985 &/&&!&.--/ Clerk September 24, 1985 J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . Mr. S t e p f a t h e r a p p e a l s a judgment o f 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 which d e n i e d h i s p e t i t i o n f o r t h e a d o p t i o n o f E.S.R. W e affirm. The i s s u e s a r e : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t m o t h e r 1. and father had entered into an oral agreement modifying f a t h e r ' s d u t y t o p a y $125 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e 2. o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t was a p r o p e r b a s i s f o r i t s conc l u s i o n t h a t f a t h e r had s u p p o r t e d E.S.R. year, so his during t h e previous c o n s e n t was n e c e s s a r y u n d e r 40-8-111 (1)( a ) , § MCA? Mother and f a t h e r w e r e divorced in 1980. Mother was g r a n t e d s o l e c u s t o d y o f t h e two m i n o r c h i l d r e n , a boy and a The f a t h e r ' s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n was s e t g i r l (E.S.R.). a t $125 p e r month p e r c h i l d . In with January o r February o f his father for 1982, s i x months. During t h a t mother agreed t o suspend t h e b o y ' s of $125 p e r month. t h e boy w e n t t o period, live the child support obligation T h i s a g r e e m e n t was l a t e r r e d u c e d t o a n order of the court. Father testified that mother a7.so orally agreed to s u s p e n d t h e g i r l ' s s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n b e c a u s e e a c h p a r e n t was totally s u p p o r t i n g one child. The m o t h e r denied any such agreement. S t e p f a t h e r p e t i t i o n e d t o a d o p t E.S.R. and p l e d t h a t t h e c o n s e n t o f t h e f a t h e r was e x c u s e d u n d e r S 40-8-111(1) ( a ) ( v ) , MCA, child by f a t h e r ' s f a i l u r e t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e during a petition. period of 1 year before the f i l i n g of the The D i s t r i c t o r a l l y modified Court concluded Court the found child that the that the natural support agreement. father had p a r e n t s had The D i s t r i c t supported E.S.R. by t o t a l l y s u p p o r t i n g t h e boy and t h u s h i s c o n s e n t was n e c e s s a r y 40-8-111 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA. under By s t a t u t e , a c h i l d c a n n o t b e a d o p t e d w i t h o u t t h e n a t u r a l parents1 consent, subject t o c e r t a i n exceptions. Section 40-8-111. (1) ( a ) ( v ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : (1) An a d o p t i o n o f a c h i l d may b e dec r e e d when t h e r e h a v e b e e n f i l e d w r i t t e n c o n s e n t s t o a d o p t i o n e x e c u t e d by: ... (a) both parents, i f l i v i n g prov i d e d t h a t c o n s e n t i s n o t r e q u i r e d from a f a t h e r o r mother: (v) i f it i s proven t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e f a t h e r o r mother, if able, has not contributed t o the support of t h e c h i l d during a period of 1 year before the f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n for adoption; ... The p r i n c i p a l i s s u e i s w h e t h e r f a t h e r h a s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e support of vail, E.S.R. In order f o r t h e s t e p f a t h e r t o pre- h e m u s t h a v e p r o v e d 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 f a t h e r "has not contributed t o t h e support of t h e c h i l d d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f one y e a r p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n and ... [ f a t h e r ] had t h e a b i l i t y t o c o n t r i b u t e S e e M a t t e r o f A d o p t i o n o f R.A.S. (Mont. . . ." 1 9 8 4 ) , 6 7 9 P.2d 220, Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t m o t h e r and f a t h e r had e n t e r e d i n t o an o r a l a g r e e m e n t m o d i f y i n g f a t h e r ' s d u t y t o p a y $ 1 2 5 p e r month f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R.? The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g of f a c t 11 s t a t e s : The e v i d e n c e regarding the agreement between t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s o f t h e m i n o r child i s i n dispute; a f t e r considering t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e demeanor o f t h e p a r t i e s while t e s t i f y i n g , t h e Court f i n d s t h a t t h e weight of t h e evidence supports t h e testimony of t h e f a t h e r t h a t such an a g r e e m e n t was made and t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t s u c h a n a g r e e m e n t d i d e x i s t between t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s o f t h e minor c h i l d i n reliance and t h a t t h e f a t h e r upon s a i d a g r e e m e n t , d i d n o t make t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t payments s p e c i f i e d i n t h e d e c r e e o f d i s s o l u t i o n and had s u c h an a g r e e m e n t n o t been i n e x i s t e n c e , h e would h a v e made t h e payments f o r t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e minor c h i l d a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e decree of dissolution. ... This Court w i l l the findings M.R.Civ.P., of n o t reverse t h e D i s t r i c t Court unless fact are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), states in pertinent part: Findings of f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and d u e r e g a r d s h a l l be given t o t h e opportunity o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e witnesses. Findings o f f a c t a r e not c l e a r l y erroneous i f supported by s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e : ... is not t o This Court's function s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment i n p l a c e o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t s b u t r a t h e r it i s " c o n f i n e d t o determining whether t h e r e i s substant i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support" t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law. Although c o n f l i c t s may e x i s t in the e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d , i t i s t h e d u t y and f u n c t i o n o f t h e t r i a l judge t o r e s o l v e H i s findings w i l l n o t be such c o n f l i c t s . d i s t u r b e d o n a p p e a l where t h e y a r e b a s e d on substantial though conflicting evidence. I n re t h e S u p p o r t o f Rockman (Mont. 1 9 8 5 ) , Father support testified payments after P.2d that mother never requested she orally agreed to g i r l ' s support obligation. I 42 child suspend the The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s e v i d e n c e t h a t f a t h e r was c u r r e n t i n h i s c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n u n t i l t h e t i m e t h e agreement took p l a c e . Mother t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was n e v e r a n o r a l a g r e e m e n t , s h e s i m p l y g o t t i r e d o f f i g h t i n g w i t h f a t h e r o v e r h i s d u t y t o s u p p o r t E.S.R. did t e s t i f y that her a t t o r n e y had told However, m o t h e r her that i f father f a i l e d t o make payments f o r one y e a r h i s c o n s e n t would n o t b e n e c e s s a r y i n t h e s t e p f a t h e r ' s a d o p t i o n o f E.S.R. The r e c o r d indicates t h a t mother's edge o f father's belief ment. In October a t t o r n e y had knowl- i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f an o r a l a g r e e - 1982, father's attorney sent mother's a t t o r n e y a l e t t e r i n response t o pending l i t i g a t i o n o v e r t h e property settlement. Among o t h e r things, the l e t t e r made r e f e r e n c e t o t h e o r a l agreement modifying t h e c h i l d s u p p o r t obligation. We Mother t e s t i f i e d s h e n e v e r saw t h e l e t t e r . conclude the record contains substantial evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's agreement modifying father's child credible finding of an o r a l support obligation of E.S.R. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t was a p r o p e r b a s i s f o r i t s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t f a t h e r had s u p p o r t e d E.S.R. during t h e previous year, so h i s c o n s e n t was n e c e s s a r y u n d e r S 4 0 - 8 - 1 1 1 ( 1 ) ( a ) , MCA? Mother c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n a g r e e m e n t i s an improper E . S. R. basis for concluding the f a t h e r has supported because v e r b a l modification of c h i l d support decrees is prohibited u n d e r S 40-4-208(2) ( b ) , MCA. That contention m i g h t b e a p p r o p r i a t e i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t were c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r t h e a g r e e m e n t would b e e n f o r c e a b l e i n a n a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r p a s t due c h i l d s u p p o r t payments. not t h e i s s u e before t h i s Court. However, that is Essentially, the issue is w h e t h e r t h e f a t h e r h a s c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R. so t h a t h i s c o n s e n t was r e q u i r e d p r i o r t o a d o p t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n o f law 2 s t a t e s : ... That [father] has contributed t o t h e s u p p o r t o f E.S.R. during t h e period o f one (1) y e a r b e f o r e t h e f i l i n g o f t h e P e t i t i o n f o r Adoption and h i s c o n s e n t t o i s t h e r e f o r e necessary. t h e adoption t h e D i s t r i c t Court gave I n a n accompanying memorandum, its rationale: I t i s t h e C o u r t ' s view t h a t u n d e r t h e agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s , both p a r t i e s have continued t o contribute t o the s u p p o r t o f b o t h c h i l d r e n and t h e m e r e f a c t t h a t t h e y h a v e c o n t r a c t e d w i t h one a n o t h e r t o assume a p o r t i o n o f e a c h o t h e r ' s o b l i g a t i o n d o e s n o t lessen t h e f a c t t h a t they a r e contributing t o the support of each of t h e children. t h e standard o f review i s whether A s stated previously, t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e c o u r t ' s conclusion. The record provided though contains evidence that the oral agreement e a c h p a r e n t would t o t a l l y s u p p o r t one c h i l d . the father did not actually give t h e mother Al- child s u p p o r t payments, h i s c o n d u c t o f t o t a l l y s u p p o r t i n g one c h i l d was, by agreement, the equivalent of financial support f o r both children. We support i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o conclude t h e r e the District s u p p o r t e d E.S.R. Court's during t h e previous year, s e n t was n e c e s s a r y u n d e r W e affirm. W e concur / conclusion § that father had s o f a t h e r ' s con- 40-8-111(1) ( a ) , MCA. Justices 1

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.