C.L.A., Matter of, No. 83-374
| Docket Nº | No. 83-374 |
| Citation | 685 P.2d 931, 211 Mont. 393, 41 St.Rep. 1444 |
| Case Date | August 02, 1984 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Page 931
Decided Aug. 2, 1984.
Page 932
[211 Mont. 394] Patten & Renz, Jeffrey T. Renz argued, Billings, for appellant.
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Robert Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, argued for fundamental issues of right to a jury trial, Harold F. Hanser, County Atty., Billings, Greg Mullowney, Deputy County Atty., Billings, argued, Olsen, Christensen, Gannett & Waller, Damon Gannett, Billings, argued as guardian ad litem, for respondent.
THOMAS M. McKITTRICK, District Judge. *
Natural parents, Richard and Judy Allmer, appeal from an order of the Yellowstone County District Court finding their minor children, five-year-old C.L.A. and three-year-old J.A., "youths in need of care," and terminating the parents' rights in the children. On July 15, 1981, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services took possession of the children pursuant to a trial court order for temporary investigative authority, authorized under section 41-3-402, MCA. On April 15, 1982, the State petitioned the trial court for permanent custody and authority to assent to adopt. The petition alleged basically that the parents were unable and unwilling to properly care for the children.[211 Mont. 395]
The parents timely filed a jury demand with the trial court. The trial court denied the demand, citing section 41-3-607(4), MCA. The cause was tried before the court sitting without a jury on November 23, 1982. The trial court consoldiated the adjudicatory and disposition hearings under section 41-3-607(1), MCA, found both youths to be "in need of care," found that the parents had not complied with the approved treatment plan, found them to be
Page 933
beyond rehabilitation, and terminated their parental rights. Parents appeal from these findings and conclusions. We affirm.The parents present three issues for review. First, whether the parents were entitled to have a jury determine whether their children, C.L.A. and J.A., are abused, dependent, or neglected. Second, whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. Third, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow the parents to cross-examine the State's witnesses regarding the ultimate placement of the children.
C.L.A. and J.A. are the fifth and sixth children born to the Allmers, and Judy Allmer was pregnant at the time of the hearing. All four older siblings have been taken from the Allmers by order of the court.
The facts of the case are derived for the most part from the testimony of the psychologist, social workers, and special education teacher, all of whom were retained by the State and had substantial contact with the Allmer family. Their testimony will be set forth in detail in discussing the second issue.
The first issue, whether the parents had a right to a jury trial, is strictly a question of law. The trial court denied the parent's demand for a jury trial, relying on section 41-3-607(4), MCA. That section provides that "there is no right to a jury trial at proceedings held to consider the termination of a parent-child legal relationship." The parents argue that section is unconstitutional pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 26 of the Montana Constitution, which provides that "the [211 Mont. 396] right to a trial by jury is secured to all and shall remain inviolable." That provision was adopted as part of the original 1889 Constitution and was recodified in the 1972 Constitution. The question is whether that right extends to civil parent-child termination proceedings which are controlled by sections 41-3-401, et seq., MCA.
The rule in Montana is that our state constitution only guarantees the right to a jury trial in the class of cases in which the right was enjoyed when the constitution was adopted. Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Co. (1902), 27 Mont. 288, 306, 70 P. 1114; State ex rel. Jackson v. Kennie (1900), 24 Mont. 45, 56-57, 60 P. 589. But in the class of cases where the right is preserved, it "shall remain inviolable" and cannot be revoked by legislative act. Chessman v. Hale (1905), 31 Mont. 577, 79 P. 254.
When our Constitution was first adopted in 1889, there was no right to a jury trial in civil proceedings for termination of the parent-child relationship because there existed no such proceeding. There were only criminal sanctions which could be imposed on abusive or neglectful...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buhmann v. State, No. 05-473.
...that individuals asserting inverse condemnation claims have historically been entitled to jury trials. Citing to Matter of C.L.A., 211 Mont. 393, 685 P.2d 931 (1984), they further argue that under Article II, Section 26 of Montana Constitution, their fundamental right to a trial by jury is ......
-
E.R.B. v. J.H.F., No. 83-1199.
...ex rel. Bishop v. Travis, 306 N.W.2d 733, 734 (Iowa), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1026, 102 S.Ct. 560, 70 L.Ed.2d 470 (1981); In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931, 933-34 (Mont.1984); Smeido v. Jansons, 23 A.D.2d 796, 259 N.Y.S.2d 169 (1965); Annot., 94 A.L.R.2d 1128 (1964 & Supp.1983); cf. Smith ......
-
State v. Chilinski, DA 14-0299
...was adopted.” Supola v. Mont. DOJ, Drivers License Bureau , 278 Mont. 421, 424–25, 925 P.2d 480, 482 (1996) (quoting In re C.L.A. , 211 Mont. 393, 396, 685 P.2d 931, 933 (1984) ). Montana's 1889 Constitution codified and preserved all existing common law rights to a jury trial. Those rights......
-
State v. Atkison, No. W2003-02109-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. App. 4/30/2004), No. W2003-02109-COA-R3-PT.
...(Ky. Ct. App. 1983); In re Shane T, 544 A.2d 1295, 1297 (Me. 1988); In re Colon, 377 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985); In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931, 933-34 (Mont. 1984); In re Clark, 281 S.E.2d 47, 57 (N.C. 1981); In re GP, 679 P.2d 976, 983 (Wyo. In re S.M., Jr., No. 01-A-01-9506-JV-002......
-
Buhmann v. State, No. 05-473.
...that individuals asserting inverse condemnation claims have historically been entitled to jury trials. Citing to Matter of C.L.A., 211 Mont. 393, 685 P.2d 931 (1984), they further argue that under Article II, Section 26 of Montana Constitution, their fundamental right to a trial by jury is ......
-
E.R.B. v. J.H.F., No. 83-1199.
...ex rel. Bishop v. Travis, 306 N.W.2d 733, 734 (Iowa), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1026, 102 S.Ct. 560, 70 L.Ed.2d 470 (1981); In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931, 933-34 (Mont.1984); Smeido v. Jansons, 23 A.D.2d 796, 259 N.Y.S.2d 169 (1965); Annot., 94 A.L.R.2d 1128 (1964 & Supp.1983); cf. Smith ......
-
State v. Chilinski, DA 14-0299
...was adopted.” Supola v. Mont. DOJ, Drivers License Bureau , 278 Mont. 421, 424–25, 925 P.2d 480, 482 (1996) (quoting In re C.L.A. , 211 Mont. 393, 396, 685 P.2d 931, 933 (1984) ). Montana's 1889 Constitution codified and preserved all existing common law rights to a jury trial. Those rights......
-
State v. Atkison, No. W2003-02109-COA-R3-PT (Tenn. App. 4/30/2004), No. W2003-02109-COA-R3-PT.
...(Ky. Ct. App. 1983); In re Shane T, 544 A.2d 1295, 1297 (Me. 1988); In re Colon, 377 N.W.2d 321, 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985); In re C.L.A., 685 P.2d 931, 933-34 (Mont. 1984); In re Clark, 281 S.E.2d 47, 57 (N.C. 1981); In re GP, 679 P.2d 976, 983 (Wyo. In re S.M., Jr., No. 01-A-01-9506-JV-002......