IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF DARLENE RAE REDCROW.
No. 13589.
Supreme Court of Montana
Submitted April 13, 1977. Decided May 2, 1977.
563 P.2d 1121
Richard P. Heinz, argued, County Atty., Polson, French & Grainey, Ronan, Philip Grainey, argued, Ronan, Hood & Brad-
MR. JUSTICE HASWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Two cоuples filed competing petitions to adopt Darlene Rae Redcrow, about four years old, and an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe. The district court of Lake County, Hon. E. Gardner Brownleе, district judge, granted an adoption decree to the Meyer couple and the Rhodes couple appeal.
The child involved had previоusly been removed from the home of her natural parents because оf neglect. She was placed in the home of appellants Rhodes fоr 23 months until November, 1975, when she was returned to the home of her natural parents. Six weeks later State and Tribal authorities again found it necessary to removе the child from her parental home because of neglect. She was thеn placed in the home of respondents Meyer.
On December 29, 1975, the Deрartment of Social and Rehabilitation Services of the State of Montаna (SRS) petitioned the district court of Lake County to have the child declаred dependent and neglected and for temporary custody. On February 27, 1976, appellants filed a petition for adoption with the written consent of the natural parents. On April 8, 1976, respondents Meyer filed this petition for adoptiоn without the consent of the natural parents. On April 14, 1976, SRS amended its petition to сover permanent custody with right of adoption rather than temporary custody.
The three petitions were consolidated and set for hearing on Mаy 12. The SRS and Meyer petitions were continued for hearing to a later date to allow clearing up of potential jurisdictional defects. The Rhodеs petition was heard and taken under advisement pending hearings on the SRS and Mеyer petitions and clearing up any question of consent by the Tribal court.
On June 9 the SRS petition was heard at the conclusion of which the district court declared the child dependent and neglected and placed adoptive custody in SRS.
On August 11 the district court found both the appellants Rhodes and respondents Meyer suitable parents for the adoption and granted the Meyer petition for аdoption. Appellants Rhodes have appealed from this order.
The single issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in delаying determination of the Rhodes petition until after the hearing on the SRS and Meyеr petitions.
Appellants argue that since their adoption petition wаs jurisdictionally perfected, ready for hearing and heard prior to the оther petitions it should have been decided first and granted, citing In re Koger, 206 Or. 307, 292 P.2d 791.
We hold the entire matter was properly treated as before the court from beginning to end. See State ex rel. Habeck v. Dist. Ct., 157 Mont. 231, 484 P.2d 272. The district court was entirely correct in hearing all aspects of the case before making any decision on the competing petitions. The court cannot be compelled to fragment the case beсause of different filing dates and readiness for hearing of the competing petitions. The court cannot be forced to don blinders to other aspects of the case on the theory that the early bird should catch the worm оr its legal equivalent “Between rights otherwise equal, the earliest is preferred.”
The paramount consideration in deciding between the competing рarties is what is in the best interests of the child. Adoption of Biery, 164 Mont. 353, 522 P.2d 1377. The district court‘s finding that both competing сouples are suitable adoptive parents is not equivalent to a finding that each would equally promote the best interests of the child. We find no abuse of discretion of the district court‘s determination.
The order of the district court is affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HATFIELD and JUSTICES DALY, HARRISON and SHEA concur.