Crider v. Crider

California Court of Appeal

Crider v. Crider

54 P.2d 485, 11 Cal. App. 2d 594, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 402

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 3, 1936

DocketCiv. 10802

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 P.2d 485 (Crider v. Crider) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crider v. Crider, 54 P.2d 485, 11 Cal. App. 2d 594, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

GOULD, J., pro tem.

Defendant appeals from an order permitting her divorced husband, plaintiff herein, to have the sole custody of their seven year old son for a period of thirty hours each alternate week. The order appealed from was in modification of custodial orders in the interlocutory and final decrees of divorce.

We find no merit in the appeal. In divorce proceedings the court retains power to vary and modify custodial *595 orders respecting minor children. Applications with regard thereto are pecularily addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its conclusion will not be disturbed except upon a clear showing o£ abuse o£ discretion. (Crater v. Crater, 135 Cal. 633 [67 Pac. 1049].) Such discretion was not abused in this case by the refusal of the trial court to hear evidence concerning matters antedating the filing of the divorce suit and which were approximately five years remote. The court was interested primarily in developments after the date of the divorce trial, and in the status, condition and fitness of the parties at the time of the hearing for modification of the order. (Olson v. Olson, 95 Cal. App. 594 [272 Pac. 1113].)

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 2, 1936.

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

GOULD, J., pro tem.

Defendant appeals from an order permitting her divorced husband, plaintiff herein, to have the sole custody of their seven year old son for a period of thirty hours each alternate week. The order appealed from was in modification of custodial orders in the interlocutory and final decrees of divorce.

We find no merit in the appeal. In divorce proceedings the court retains power to vary and modify custodial *595 orders respecting minor children. Applications with regard thereto are pecularily addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and its conclusion will not be disturbed except upon a clear showing o£ abuse o£ discretion. (Crater v. Crater, 135 Cal. 633 [67 Pac. 1049].) Such discretion was not abused in this case by the refusal of the trial court to hear evidence concerning matters antedating the filing of the divorce suit and which were approximately five years remote. The court was interested primarily in developments after the date of the divorce trial, and in the status, condition and fitness of the parties at the time of the hearing for modification of the order. (Olson v. Olson, 95 Cal. App. 594 [272 Pac. 1113].)

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 2, 1936.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 P.2d 485, 11 Cal. App. 2d 594, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crider-v-crider-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack