Cundy v. Hendriksen

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cundy v. Hendriksen

227 S.E.2d 59, 237 Ga. 165, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1182

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 30, 1976

Docket30874

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 S.E.2d 59 (Cundy v. Hendriksen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cundy v. Hendriksen, 227 S.E.2d 59, 237 Ga. 165, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1182 (Ga. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Jordan, Justice.

Appellant and appellee were divorced on February 26, 1975, in Lane County, Oregon, and custody of the parties’ sole minor child was awarded to appellee-wife. Pursuant to visitation rights under the decree, the appellant 1¡ook custody of the child around the middle of June, 1975, while residing in Wisconsin. Without informing appellee of his whereabouts, appellant, with the child, moved to Georgia. In December, 1975, appellee succeeded in locating appellant and promptly filed this writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed an answer and cross claim alleging a change in conditions affecting the welfare of the eleven-year-old child.

The trial court, after a full hearing, adjudged that appellant had no legal right to the child and that there had been no change of condition affecting the welfare of the child which would support a change in custody. It was ordered that appellant return custody of the child to appellee instanter.

A review of the evidence reveals questions of fact for determination by the trial judge, and we find sufficient and reasonable evidence to support his determination and judgment. McGinnis v. McGinnis, 236 Ga. 900; Githens v. Githens, 235 Ga. 657 (221 SE2d 428) (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Jordan, Justice.

Appellant and appellee were divorced on February 26, 1975, in Lane County, Oregon, and custody of the parties’ sole minor child was awarded to appellee-wife. Pursuant to visitation rights under the decree, the appellant 1¡ook custody of the child around the middle of June, 1975, while residing in Wisconsin. Without informing appellee of his whereabouts, appellant, with the child, moved to Georgia. In December, 1975, appellee succeeded in locating appellant and promptly filed this writ of habeas corpus. Appellant filed an answer and cross claim alleging a change in conditions affecting the welfare of the eleven-year-old child.

The trial court, after a full hearing, adjudged that appellant had no legal right to the child and that there had been no change of condition affecting the welfare of the child which would support a change in custody. It was ordered that appellant return custody of the child to appellee instanter.

A review of the evidence reveals questions of fact for determination by the trial judge, and we find sufficient and reasonable evidence to support his determination and judgment. McGinnis v. McGinnis, 236 Ga. 900; Githens v. Githens, 235 Ga. 657 (221 SE2d 428) (1975).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 S.E.2d 59, 237 Ga. 165, 1976 Ga. LEXIS 1182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cundy-v-hendriksen-ga-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack