Bennett v. Bennett

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Bennett v. Bennett

280 N.W. 363, 228 Wis. 401, 1938 Wisc. LEXIS 200

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 280 N.W. 363 (Bennett v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. Bennett, 280 N.W. 363, 228 Wis. 401, 1938 Wisc. LEXIS 200 (Wis. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Fairchild, J.

Beyond question, the circuit court for Dane county has jurisdiction over the custody of the children of this severed marriage, sec. 247.24, Stats. The question raised by the appellant as to whether there was an abuse of discretion in granting to the father, who had the custody of the children under an order of the court, permission to take the children from the state of Wisconsin and physically out of this jurisdiction, must be answered against the appellant. The father has an opportunity of employment in New York at a larger salary and with prospect of advancement. His reasons for moving were investigated by the court below and were found to be sufficient. For the father to- have the advantage of this opportunity was found to be consistent with the welfare of the children. In the order for change of residence there is provision for as full an opportunity of visitation by the mother as the circumstances warrant, and the evidence concerning the condition of the children under the father’s care is convincing that the wiser course is to- leave them with him. The arrangement for the boys to visit their [404]*404mother during the summer is just, considering the means of the parents.

The circuit court of this state having jurisdiction of the parties, comity and the full-faith-and-credit clause of the federal constitution may be relied upon to furnish assurance of the recognition of its orders in other states. Morill v. Morill (1910), 83 Conn. 479, 77 Atl. 1; Wakefield v. Ives (1872), 35 Iowa, 238; Stetson v. Stetson (1888), 80 Me. 483, 15 Atl. 60; State ex rel. Nipp v. District Court (1912), 46 Mont. 425, 128 Pac. 590.

The hardships which appellant says have been visited upon her are but difficulties which inevitably must accompany the distressing situation in which she finds herself. We cannot say that any finding by the court is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence or that in any respect there has been an abuse of discretion.

By the Court. — The orders are affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fairchild, J.

Beyond question, the circuit court for Dane county has jurisdiction over the custody of the children of this severed marriage, sec. 247.24, Stats. The question raised by the appellant as to whether there was an abuse of discretion in granting to the father, who had the custody of the children under an order of the court, permission to take the children from the state of Wisconsin and physically out of this jurisdiction, must be answered against the appellant. The father has an opportunity of employment in New York at a larger salary and with prospect of advancement. His reasons for moving were investigated by the court below and were found to be sufficient. For the father to- have the advantage of this opportunity was found to be consistent with the welfare of the children. In the order for change of residence there is provision for as full an opportunity of visitation by the mother as the circumstances warrant, and the evidence concerning the condition of the children under the father’s care is convincing that the wiser course is to- leave them with him. The arrangement for the boys to visit their [404]*404mother during the summer is just, considering the means of the parents.

The circuit court of this state having jurisdiction of the parties, comity and the full-faith-and-credit clause of the federal constitution may be relied upon to furnish assurance of the recognition of its orders in other states. Morill v. Morill (1910), 83 Conn. 479, 77 Atl. 1; Wakefield v. Ives (1872), 35 Iowa, 238; Stetson v. Stetson (1888), 80 Me. 483, 15 Atl. 60; State ex rel. Nipp v. District Court (1912), 46 Mont. 425, 128 Pac. 590.

The hardships which appellant says have been visited upon her are but difficulties which inevitably must accompany the distressing situation in which she finds herself. We cannot say that any finding by the court is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence or that in any respect there has been an abuse of discretion.

By the Court. — The orders are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 N.W. 363, 228 Wis. 401, 1938 Wisc. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-bennett-wis-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack