McDonald v. McDonald, 8916
Decision Date | 23 May 1950 |
Docket Number | No. 8916,8916 |
Citation | 124 Mont. 26,218 P.2d 929 |
Parties | , 15 A.L.R.2d 1260 McDONALD v. McDONALD. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Rognlien & Murray, Kalispell, Marshall H. Murray, Kalispell, for appellant.
T. H. MacDonald, Kalispell, for respondent.
The question involved on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in awarding the custody of Marsha Ann, the minor child of the parties, to plaintiff, the mother.
The parties were divorced on July 28, 1947. Marsha was then two years old and living with defendant's mother. Before the divorce was granted plaintiff and defendant agreed that the child could remain with defendant's mother until she reached school age after which plaintiff was to have her during the school months and defendant during the vacation period. Plaintiff testified to this arrangement and defendant failed to appear at the trial.
The court however declined to give full effect to the agreement with respect to custody and awarded the custody to plaintiff, the mother, with the right in her to leave the child with defendant's mother so long as she saw fit to do so. The court further ordered that while the child is in the actual care and custody of the mother, defendant shall pay her $45 per month.
Shortly after the dirorce, upon request of plaintiff, defendant took the child for a visit to the home of plaintiff's parents in Glacier Park where plaintiff was then living. Plaintiff never returned the child.
Plaintiff, shortly after the divorce from defendant, married Jack Cochran. He was an oil field worker and lived in the oil fields out of Cut Bank. To this union a child was born on July 2, 1948. During the confinement of plaintiff, Marsha was left by her with plaintiff's mother at Glacier Park.
On July 21, 1948, defendant filed a petition to modify the decree of divorce so far as it awarded the custody of Marsha. Plaintiff hearing of the filing of the petition left Montana with her husband and Marsha and went to California.
Since personal service of the order to show cause could not be made upon her, defendant procured an order for its publication and it was published. After hearing defendant's application, the court on September 27, 1948, modified the decree by awarding the custody to defendant. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing either in person or by counsel.
On March 5, 1949, plaintiff, having returned to Montana with Marsha, filed application to vacate the judgment awarding custody to defendant and asked that the custody be awarded to her.
After hearing, whereat both parties were present and introduced testimony, the court found in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant and awarded the custody of Marsha to plaintiff.
The court made findings which may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff was 17 years of age when married and defendant 22. She is of the white race while defendant is a member of the Flathead Indian Tribe; defendant lives with his mother and brothers on a ranch about eight miles north of Lonepine in Sanders county; defendant owns and controls land and cattle about four miles from the home of his mother where he proposes to establish a home for himself and his present wife, he having since remarried; much unpleasantness resulted in the home when plaintiff and defendant lived together at the home of defendant's mother and because thereof plaintiff was away working a good part of the time after Marsha was born; though the decree of divorce provided that defendant should pay $45 per month for the support of Marsha, he made no payments though well able to do so from July 28, 1947, to September 27, 1948, but he paid $585 on March 1, 1949, when faced with contempt proceedings; that Marsha is a healthy baby of normal size and weight and behaved well in court, showing great devotion to her mother and stepfather; that plaintiff and her present husband have an appropriate home in a suitable neighborhood in California where Mr. Cochran has an opportunity to go into business; that the home is almost across the street from a grade school, with a church nearby; that Mr. Cochran is devoted to Marsha and she to him and to her mother; that the defendant's present home at his mother's place is eight miles from school and that if defendant established the home which he intends to do it would be where school would be one-half mile away; that conditions is Montana are such as to cause continual and serious emotional disturbance in the child that would destroy her happiness and impair her future growth and welfare; that the McDonalds by the demeanor in court and otherwise displayed hatred of plaintiff and that the best interests and welfare of the child require that she have a fixed place to live and that there be no double custody as between her mother and stepfather, and her father and stepmother and that she should go to California with her mother; that plaintiff is fairly well educated and near appearing and kind and considerate and that the child needs her care.
The record contains substantial evidence supporting the conclusion of the trial court in awarding the custody of Marsha to plaintiff, her mother.
There was of course evidence from which a contrary conclusion might have been reached but the responsibility of resolving these conflicts was on the trial judge who had the opportunity, denied to us, of observing the conduct and demeanor of the parties involved.
This court is committed to the view that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in awarding its custody and that this must of necessity be left largely in the discretion of the trial judge with whose discretion we will not interefere except on a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion. Damm v. Damm, 82 Mont. 239, 266 P. 410; Boles v. Boles, 60 Mont. 411, 199 P. 912; Jewett v. Jewett, 73 Mont. 591, 237 P. 702. And see, Talbot v. Talbot, 120 Mont. 167, 181 P.2d 148 and Benson v. Benson, Mont., 193 P.2d 827.
Finding substantial evidence in the record sustaining the trial judge's order awarding the custody of Marsha to plaintiff, we cannot interfere with the order.
The only other point raised is that the court erred in allowing attorney's fees to plaintiff.
R.C.M.1947, sec. 21-137, provides:
Section 21-138 reads: 'In an action for divorce the court or judge may, before or after judgment, give such direction for the custody, care, and education of the children of the marriage as may seem necessary or proper, and may at any time vacate or modify the same.'
Defendant contends that there is no statutory authority for attorney's fees after the divorce action is ended and after the relationship of husband and wife has terminated.
There is respectable authority supporting that view. See Hayton v. Hayton, 122 Wash, 594, 211 P. 745; Wallace v. Wallace, 273 Mass. 62, 172 N.E. 914; Nelson v. Nelson, 146 Ark. 362, 225 S.W. 619; Davis v. Davis, 143 Fla. 282, 196 So. 614; Bishop v. Bishop, 210 App.Div. 3, 205 N.Y.S. 542.
We think however that the weight of authority and the better reasoned cases under statutes such as ours hold otherwise. Among such cases are the following: Crooks v. Crooks, Mo.App., 197 S.W.2d 686; Parker v. Parker, 269 App.Div. 717, 54 N.Y.S.2d 172; Anderson v. Anderson, 110 Utah 300, 172 P.2d 132; Marks v. Marks, 98 Utah 400, 100 P.2d 207; (Hipple v. Hipple, 128 Kan. 406, 278 P. 33; Resisting alimony and change of custody of children); Tinker v. Tinker, 144 Okl. 94, 290 P. 187; Thomas v. Thomas, 233 Ill.App. 488; Spratt v. Spratt, 151 Minn. 458 185 N.W. 509, 187 N.W. 227; Novotny v. Novotny, 152 Minn. 420, 189 N.W. 258.
The reason for such holding was well stated in the Crooks case as follows:
We allowed an attorney's fee in State ex rel. Graveley v. District Court, 119 Mont. 276, 174 P.2d 565, in such a proceeding.
Defendant relies upon the case of Grimstad v. Johnson, 61 Mont. 18, 201 P. 314, 25 A.L.R. 351. But...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trudgen v. Trudgen, 9678
...prior to January 17th, and the situation such actions created, justify allowance of an attorney fee. She cites McDonald v. McDonald, 124 Mont. 26, 218 P.2d 929, 15 A.L.R.2d 1260, with annotation beginning on page 1270. In the past such position has been the rule of this In opposition, the a......
-
Krasnow v. Krasnow
...done the court may require that he provide her with the means for her defense, if she is without such means. McDonald v. McDonald, 124 Mont. 26, 32, 218 P.2d 929, 15 A.L.R.2d 1260; Spratt v. Spratt, 151 Minn. 458, 465, 185 N.W. 509, 187 N.W. 227; Chambers v. Chambers, 75 Neb. 850, 856, 106 ......
-
I v. B
...536, and cases cited at loc. cit. 539; see, also Klepper v. Klepper, 193 Mo.App. 46, 180 S.W. 461.20 See McDonald v. McDonald, 124 Mont. 26, 218 P.2d 929, 15 A.L.R.2d 1260, 1265, and annotations at page Tomlinson v. French Institute of Notre Dame De Sion, 232 Mo.App. 597, 109 S.W.2d 73, 76;......
-
Barbour v. Barbour, 9696
...to paying respondent's costs and counsel fees. This specification of error would have been controlled by McDonald v. McDonald, 124 Mont. 26, 218 P.2d 929, 15 A.L.R.2d 1260, with annotation at page 1270, until that decision was overruled by Wilson v. Wilson, 128 Mont. 511, 278 P.2d 219. The ......