563 P.2d 1121 | Mont. | 1977
No. 13589
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 I N THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF DARLENE RAE REDCROW Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable E. Gardner Brownlee, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : C h r i s t i a n , McCurdy, Ingraham & Wold, P o l s o n , Montana Donald P e t e r s o n a r g u e d , P o l s o n , Montana
For Respondent : R i c h a r d P. Heinz a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , P o l s o n , Montana French and G r a i n e y , Ronan, Montana P h i l i p G r a i n e y a r g u e d , Ronan, Montana Hood and Bradshaw, M i s s o u l a , Montana Randi M. Hood a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana Thomas Mahan, H e l e n a , Montana
S u b m i t t e d : A p r i l 1 3 , 1977 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . Two c o u p l e s f i l e d competing p e t i t i o n s t o a d o p t D a r l e n e Rae Redcrow, a b o u t f o u r y e a r d o l d , and an e n r o l l e d member o f t h e C o n f e d e r a t e d S a l i s h and Kootenai T r i b e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Lake County, Hon. E. Gardner Brownlee, d i s t r i c t judge, g r a n t e d a n a d o p t i o n d e c r e e t o t h e Meyer c o u p l e and t h e Rhodes c o u p l e a p p e a l .
The c h i l d i n v o l v e d had p r e v i o u s l y been removed from t h e home o f h e r n a t u r a l p a r e n t s b e c a u s e o f n e g l e c t . She was p l a c e d i n t h e home o f a p p e l l a n t s Rhodes f o r 2 3 months u n t i l November, 1975, when s h e was r e t u r n e d t o t h e home o f h e r n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . S i x weeks l a t e r S t a t e and T r i b a l a u t h o r i t i e s a g a i n found it n e c e s s a r y t o remove t h e c h i l d from h e r p a r e n t a l home b e c a u s e o f n e g l e c t . She was t h e n p l a c e d i n t h e home o f r e s p o n d e n t s Meyer.
On December 2 9 , 1975, t h e Department o f S o c i a l and Re- h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s o f t h e S t a t e of Montana (SRS) p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Lake County t o have t h e c h i l d d e c l a r e d dependent and n e g l e c t e d and f o r temporary c u s t o d y . On F e b r u a r y 27, 1976, a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n w i t h t h e w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . On A p r i l 8 , 1976, re- s p o n d e n t s Meyer f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t of t h e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . On A p r i l 1 4 , 1976, SRS amended i t s p e t i t i o n t o c o v e r permanent c u s t o d y w i t h r i g h t o f a d o p t i o n r a t h e r t h a n temporary c u s t o d y .
The t h r e e p e t i t i o n s were c o n s o l i d a t e d and s e t f o r h e a r i n g on May 12. The SRS and Meyer p e t i t i o n s were c o n t i n u e d f o r h e a r i n g t o a l a t e r d a t e t o a l l o w c l e a r i n g up o f p o t e n t i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t s . The Rhodes p e t i t i o n was h e a r d and t a k e n under a d v i s e - ment pending h e a r i n g s on t h e SRS and Meyer p e t i t i o n s and c l e a r i n g up any q u e s t i o n of c o n s e n t by t h e T r i b a l c o u r t .
On J u n e 9 t h e SRS p e t i t i o n w a s h e a r d a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of which the district court declared the child dependent and neglected and placed adoptive custody in SRS.
The Meyer petition was heard on July 12 and taken under advisement. On August 11 the district court found both the appel- lants Rhodes and respondents Meyer suitable parents for the adoption and granted the Meyer petition for adoption. Appel- lants Rhodes have appealed from this order.
The single issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in delaying determination of the Rhodes petition until after the hearing on the SRS and Meyer petitions.
Appellants argue that since their adoption petition was jurisdictionally perfected, ready for hearing and heard prior to the other petitions it should have been decided first and granted, citing In re Koger, 206 Ore. 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 because 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 or its legal equivalent "Between rights otherwise equal, the earliest is preferred." Section 49-117, R.C.M. 1947.
The paramount consideration in deciding between the competing parties 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 couples 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. Justice Justices