GROVES v CLARK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 96-040 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Robert P. Goff, Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: David F. Stufft, Attorney Cut Bank, Montana For at Law, Respondents: James Great D. Elshoff, Attorney Falls, Montana Submitted at Law, on Briefs: Decided: Filed: May 16, July 26, 1996 1996 Justice Terry N. Trieweiler On July for the 24, Eighth performance with opposing 21, 1995, the the Clarks' deemed concluded that and denied appeals the District The that a matter of the and the is open summary was void that to for for specific to into by agreement from its performance. We reverse matter the court order for of further opinion. whether the visitation adoptive objection request agreement this entered Court, for specific had a motion order. the with on appeal concluded District Court an Groves' petition and remand for filed objection Court's accordance issue mother Groves' Court. District she Clarks the visitation District Court in The the County that a brief proceedings birth agreement of the Cascade and inception, it in Clark. On December Opinion petitioned Loralee judgment, the District a visitation parties, Groves Groves and adoption. the the petition Groves ' of Debbie Judicial of Lonn 1995, delivered District Court agreement prior to adoption parents when between executed erred the was void as law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Debbie Laci until lived Groves with is Groves approximately relinquishing consenting Prior from June 28, of Laci mother 5, 1990, 1994, of Laci the date when Groves to Lutheran Lee Groves Social Clark. of Laci's birth, signed a document Services (LSS) and adoption. to her acquainted with Lonn to them to permit natural January custody to the relinquishment of and Loralee Clark, adopt Laci through 2 Laci, Groves had who had encouraged LSS. At one become Groves of their meetings, the Clarks adoption" so that after adoption. to the adoption On until but have visitation was adamant Clarks signed 11, 1994, the that agree Clarks rights she would not a 14 Groves signed consent a separate provided: the to be I'd I'd following: able to give a 2-day notice like have Laci go with me or like to come visit at the Clark I would like to have telephone contact with Laci and the Clark's [sic] as often as I feel it is necessary. 3. I don't intend to unless I have to emergency. If that Lacy [sic] with me. The Clarks Their signed the signatures Loralee requests contact notarized On January "Relinquishment adoption. with 1994, and Consent Laci to in the to honor agreement 28, take Laci out of school go to Butte for some happens I do need to take that Debbie Laci three days Groves 3 read: Groves' "We, Lonn and wishes regarding Groves a signed document In that LSS the expressly public. an later. executed to Adoption." Groves of a notary Lee Groves." LSS and granted In addition, presence a provision are willing for relinquished agreement followed Clark, identical for Laci post-adoption 2. her with agreement. signed The agreement to an "open pertains to Debbie's desire to have with Laci Lee Groves (DOB 6-5-90) after by Lonn and Loralee Clark. desires I hope whenever whenever home. would a visitation and on January This agreement visitation time Laci is adopted 1. they Groves agreement. Debbie that could Groves agreement, identical Groves the January visitation told right waived entitled document, to Groves place service Laci of any notice of the proceedings and placement director to of would execute the February 2, for not the of mention in the rights. and telephoned the Groves On July response, the brief opposition parties agreed Clarks that motion for summary motion for specific to home. On Court entered an terminating a petition entered adoption a summary proceedings with to Groves' filed court agreement abided June to make refused did Groves. Adoption," the As set Groves 5, 1995. to that On that did visitation filed an objection Groves' the judgment. objection The performance 4 for open could District on had December Court 21, allowed occasions. the Groves' on her no longer requesting with to request Clarks' could and on other agreement to Laci Clarks a petition executed when Groves visit she the time, the date, to Groves holidays Groves of terms arrangements on major filed by and told Prior her and proceedings. until 1995, executive required Clarks and Consent Clarks Laci of in visitation those Clarks 24, performance the LSS' adoptive and the Clarks visit After during daughter. to been that agreement her LSS 1994, the visitation the to rights attorney-in-fact District 23, their in Groves visit Laci "Relinquishment participate birthday, Judicial of that a suitable At no time adoption. Clarks in parental as her have may Laci her and agreed that on September of proceedings Eighth custody adoption forth those of and parental decree the at placement 1994, termination adoption, documents awarding custodial for appear any complete order Laci for specific Clarks. In petition and a adoption. be The treated denied 1995. as Groves' In its a the order, court Adoption" relating held constituted to visitation the Laci. and parental concluded that no conclusion, was void rights for the "Relinquishment final, Consent agreement document did not reserve purported to [Lacil, now and forever," parental any the rights to up all post-adoption held to by Groves document had given court and controlling that that Groves claim the Because because [Groves'] had that of her visitation. that the "terminate Based parties' all court and on visitation that agreement and unenforceable. DISCUSSION Did agreement was void In the District Court executed between as a matter of this appropriate for We review a district apply M.R.Civ.P. P.2d Bruner 901, 903. judgment is fact and the The judgment pursuant order that Clarks the visitation prior appropriate to adoption is the Rule summary court M.R.Civ.P., when there party to for (1995) , Cozrnty 56(c), treated district as the V. Yellowstone District and the Court court's moving held District summary Rule it law? same evaluation the when Groves the case, err is entitled matter 56, M.R.Civ.P. judgment to judgment and 56, 261, provides no genuine denovo on Rule based 272 Mont. as 264, that issue 900 summary of material as a matter of law. performance on voluntarily given "Relinquishment Court the basis up and all denied of Groves' its petition determination of her parental Consent to Adoption" 5 for that rights which to she specific Groves Laci had in the signed on January 1994. 28, constituted "the and concluded terms The final that Groves failure full and Laci. In termination reaching Section 40-8-125, (1) After the relation duties, and relation of between such adopting such parents. that by Groves to reserve MCA, and 1nveC.P. § 40-8-125, determined agreement its accomplished court its relating the to the the 221 Mont. in child," within relationship conclusion, MCA, provides document any visitation of (1986), that between court 180, relevant its relied 717 P.Zd on 1093. part: the final decree of adoption is entered, of parent and child and all the rights, other legal consequences of the natural child and parent shall thereafter exist adopted child and the adoptive parents of the adoptive child and the kindred After the final decree of adoption is entered, (2) the natural parents and the kindred of the natural parents of the adopted child, unless they are the adoptive parents or the spouse of an adoptive parent, shall be relieved of all parental responsibilities for said child and have no rights over such adopted child. In In re C.P., § 221 Mont. 717 P.Zd MCA, 40-8-125, parents 181, to preclude a trial court once Specifically, adoption. 1093, visitation has Inre C.P. is In Ye c. P. , in the 717 P.2d distinguishable from although final order, at the interpreted for its the final natural decree of we stated: 183, 221 Mont. Court rights entered When MCAI is clear. the natural parent no This includes child. This language [of § 40-8-125, parental rights are terminated, longer has any rights over the visitation riqhts. In re C.P., this parties there discussed at 1095 this case, including was no indication 6 (underlining in however. visitation the record added). First, in rights that the parties reached 182, any agreement P.2d 717 voluntarily at 1094. signed of the in InreCP. on the contrast, In issue. in a notarized visitation that the outcome had there been a statute adoption decree visitation. In and that In of that had case provided parties for both have different after for terms recognized been visitation bargained the Court at parties provided the might Mont. 221 case which addition, that the case, this agreement arrangement. In Ye C.P., a final the right of we noted: Even if the statutes provided for such a retention of visitation rights, the record in this case contains no evidence to support such a finding . There is no question that appellant disputed SRS obtaining permanent custody. Thus, there is no question of whether she agreed to their custody in exchange for visitation rights. In re C.P., 221 parties did alleges Mont. that consented to in sign bargain 183, for P.2d 717 the right of at 1095. the to termination of place for adoption only Laci visitation In re C.P., the which agreement. Montana agreements this In the Clarks since our has into prospective adoptive parents relating conduct of the and the adoptive child. in 1989, provides in MCA, enacted rights enacted entered relevant a and agreed decision statutory between to the birth future Specifically, part: Prior to a hearing under 40-8-109, the birth (1) adoptive parents, and their parents, prospective representatives shall file with the court a report of and they shall serve a copy agreements and disbursements, of the report on the central office of the department. (2) The report must contain: 7 the Groves after and § 40-E-136, fact, parental parents parties case, her Furthermore, Legislature recognizes In visitation. she agreed to provision at all oral and written aqreements between the (a) parties that relate to the future conduct of a party with resoect to the child. If an oral agreement is reported, the substance of the agreement must be contained in the report and a copy of the report must be served on each party to the oral agreement. Copies of all written agreements must be attached to the report. (Emphasis added.) Although visitation § 40-8-136, agreements statute does respect to the or clearly the child." of the natural the natural conduct of would It effect which See, e.g., A4ontana Contractor s 715 P.2d P.Zd 1028, 1029. post-adoption our the with child, to that 1058; Seealso to then for MCA. the future child render must and is 191 Mont. That does not, a disfavored. 210, 392 , 212, 622 interpret We therefore of give that ( 19 8 6 ) , 2 2 0 Mont recognition and visitation. 5 40-8-136, Court meaningless (1981), 5 l-Z-101, all adoptive the this ofHighways Cristv.&gna Inre C.P., the provisions, a provision provide contact statutory with terminates respect established that a party in automatically over Ass n v. Department of determined is well all contact, § agreements however, for end inquiry. Section hearing for placement, their Court would renders 1056, MCA, 40-8-136, conduct rights parents to construction 395, future reference continuing as this parents specifically Such a construction MCA, meaningless. and not for "the parental be irrelevant. meaning to If, of does agreements refer termination rights MCA, 40-8-136, the "the MCA, provides relinquishment birth representatives parents, shall of that prior parental rights prospective file with 8 to a district adoptive the court and court adoptive parents, a report and of agreements and disbursements, report on the central Clarks contend that visitation her of Groves had with right mistakenly to the now interpreted 40-8-136, solely office agreement waives MCA, on parents, the and not birth the a duty object. the and their rather Furthermore, in this case, participate in the hearing for had appointed of Laci and Therefore, behalf. prospective failure file comply Accordingly, with we hold visitation petition specific that specific order to the natural that determine the the file of on her Clarks, as as Groves' visitation those 5 to and act executed of to to for right rights LSS, the not, parents merit we must however, once court. of the added.) her her both penalized failure birth, share waived requirements does "the parties' 40-8-136, MCA. a report itself, bar Groves' of petition the Groves' performance. performance, responsibilities that director of be the agreement for In not an agreement of director do so Section (Emphasis of the however, renresentatives" duty the to have, provides LSS' the of failure filing termination the the of had expressly report should her agreement. the a Groves to written was and to agreement. such Groves it parents, representative, with any a report Clarks burden parents, filing of requirements. but of a copy On appeal, file The requirement adoption to statute's place serve and that parent, orosoective shall department." court the does they a report of and prospective It is well of address a visitation adoptive established 9 a district court's agreement parents that: "It for between has been is the filed policy of the child state are To that of ' [tlhe and Section interests when it that continued contact child's court we agreement should agreements best not not the of the "enter rights between visitation held is into the in the child best any of complete interest 10 with natural of case an the of other 1981) New family of , York does parent all further Maryland the Special and respect child such of (N.Y. Appeals parent that law Sheppard severance adoptive the best to be in the an adoptive Similarly, and in such and by the of agreement is adoptive are determined Court the if district that visitation creation that child and prospective the relatives. effect court. parents the the reason in People excel. Sibleyv. require Appeals may no supported statutory given to child's example, former parent is when they is a trial the 1052-53, automatically Court child for is post-adoption be enforced parents." a hearing, by the natural for 1049, with there be enforced that of that contact that interdependent and the in of agreement, be parents agreement For concluded natural focus adoptive only an should N.E.Zd the the visitation should the MCA. primary essential following contract interest of therefore of 40-8-114(l), and If, conclude jurisdictions. 429 agreement conclusion may is interests be the parents that interest, parents must a post-adoption such best Section interest. concludes Our It between best the recognition birth MCA. that that child full of considers recognize the of the with 40-f-114(3), court, ensure proceedings." needs proceedings, needs to met by adoption end, adoption Montana to so the natural visitation long and public as the policy does not App. 19831, 1937), prevent 466 195 A. visitation." A.2d 1301, 306). a visitation to such agreement promote the 1305 Finally, best (interpreting the that Connecticut of the Supreme in child Ct. Spec Slxncer v. Franks was negotiated interest (Md. Weinschel v. Slrople good Court faith (Md upheld in order and noted: The plaintiff's rights are not premised on an ongoing genetic relationship that somehow survives a termination of parental rights and an adoption. Instead, the plaintiff is asking us to decide whether, as an adult who has an ongoing personal relationship with the child, she with the adopting parents, prior to may contract for the continued right to visit with the adoption, so long as that visitation continues to be in the child, best interest of the child. Traditional models of the nuclear family have come, in recent years, to be replaced by various configurations stepparents, adoptive of parents, parents and We are not prepared to assume that the grandparents. welfare of children is best served by a narrow definition of those whom we permit to continue to manifest their deep concern for a child's growth and development. Michnudv. (Corm. Wmwuck citations 1988) , 551 A.Zd 738, 740-42 (footnotes and omitted). We parents conclude are trial that free courts to is give in the conclude that specific performance the basis with the therefore contract must visitation of Groves the for best such interest of precluded prospective contracts the from when file a report prior to the adoption Court erred continued We further filing to 11 and that child. failure District adoptive visitation visitation of the parties' the and post-adoption to was not Court that parents effect Clarks' District hold birth a petition agreement of the for solely agreement proceeding. when it on summarily We denied Groves' determination interest. for of whether Accordingly, a hearing between petition on whether for specific continued visitation we remand this enforcement Groves and the Clarks performance 12 in Laci's case to the District of the visitation would be in Laci's Justices is without best a best Court agreement interest.
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.
