Custody of Dallenger, In re, 13493
Decision Date | 22 August 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 13493,13493 |
Citation | 568 P.2d 169,34 St.Rep. 938,173 Mont. 530 |
Parties | In re the CUSTODY OF Suzanne Dawn DALLENGER et al. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Scott, Linnell, Neill & Newhall, Kenneth R. Neill (argued), Great Falls, for appellant.
Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg & Matteucci, John L. Alke (argued), Great Falls, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court, Cascade County, granting respondent's petition for modification of the decree as to custody of the parties' two children.
Appellant Ronald Dallenger was awarded custody of the children, Suzanne and Christopher, pursuant to a decree of divorce entered May 24, 1974. Appellant has since remarried and presently lives in Great Falls, Montana. Respondent, Martha Herren, also is remarried and resides in Florida. On February 20, 1976, respondent filed a petition for modification of custody. She filed an amended petition to the same effect on March 25, 1976. The matter was referred to the court of conciliation for investigation and hearing was held June 30, 1976, on the modification issue. After the hearing the district court granted respondent's petition for modification and awarded custody of the children to her. The court expressed the standards it employed in these findings and conclusions:
Appellant urges two specifications of error:
(1) The district court applied incorrect standards in its decision to change custody of the children to respondent.
(2) That even if the proper standards were applied, the decision was not supported by the evidence.
We hold the first specification of error requires a reversal of the district court's order and new hearing, therefore we express no opinion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the prior hearing.
The action for modification of custody arises under the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, section 48-339, R.C.M.1947, it provides:
Section 48-339 requires a showing of a change in circumstances and that modification is necessary to serve the best interests of the child. The statute is specific, however, in pointing out how these standards are to be applied. No change in custody may be made unless subsections (a), (b), or (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Marriage of Sarsfield, In re
...custody arrangement." Gianotti v. McCracken (1977), 174 Mont. 209, 214, 569 P.2d 929, 932. See also In re the Custody of Dallenger (1977), 173 Mont. 530, 534, 568 P.2d 169, 171-2. This prerequisite codifies the basic policy behind the modification statute: a presumption in favor of custodia......
-
LaMarca's Custody, In re, 79-8
...of section 610, were rejected in Schiele v. Sager (Mont.1977), 571 P.2d 1142, 1145, and in In re Custody of Dallenger (Mont.1977), 568 P.2d 169, 171. In each case the court found that the basic policy consideration underlying section 610 was to preserve custodial continuity, and basing a ju......
-
Marriage of Batchelor, In re
...of subsections (b)(1)-(3) (Ill.Ann.Stat. par. 610, Historical and Practice Notes, at 95 (Smith-Hurd (1980)); In Re Custody of Dallenger (1977), 173 Mont. 530, 534, 568 P.2d 169, 172). Second, only after the conditions set forth in one of these three subsections have been met, consideration ......
-
Custody of Harne, In re
...interpreted a virtually identical Montana statutory provision. (Schiele v. Sager (1977), Mont., 571 P.2d 1142; In re Custody of Dallenger (1977), Mont., 568 P.2d 169.) The interpretation of the Montana court is that subsections (1) through (3) of section 610(b) "are jurisdictional prerequis......