Herbst v. Herbst

505 P.2d 294, 211 Kan. 163, 1973 Kan. LEXIS 368
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 20, 1973
Docket46,665
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 505 P.2d 294 (Herbst v. Herbst) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herbst v. Herbst, 505 P.2d 294, 211 Kan. 163, 1973 Kan. LEXIS 368 (kan 1973).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The parties to this action were divorced in 1966; the custody of their two-year-old daughter was given to the mother. Shortly thereafter, the mother, then seventeen, was sentenced to the Girls Industrial School at Beloit, and, the father being then in the United States Marine Corps, temporary custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents, pending the father s “tour of duty,” and without disturbing the permanent custody which had by the decree been awarded to the mother.

In 1971, the mother moved to have the actual custody of the child taken from the grandparents and awarded to her. She had been released from Beloit and had remarried. The district court continued custody in the grandparents on a permanent basis and denied the mother’s application. She appeals from that order.

The district court expressly held that there was no finding of unfitness on the part of the mother. No such finding had been made as to the father. So it reduces to a controversy between the mother of the child, whose fitness is unchallenged, and her parents who have the child’s custody. The record does not show any lack of appellant’s ability to care for her child.

Under these circumstances we have no choice in the matter but to reverse the judgment of the district court, no matter how sincerely it may have felt that the welfare of the child was best promoted by leaving her with the grandparents.

In the absence of an adjudication that a natural parent is unfit to have custody of a child, the parent has the paramount right to custody as opposed to third parties — even, as here, they happen to be her own parents and the child’s grandparents. See Finney v. *164 Finney, 201 Kan. 263, 440 P. 2d 608, and cases there cited; In re Armentrout, 207 Kan 366, 485 P. 2d 183; Hamm v. Hamm, 207 Kan. 431, 485 P. 2d 221; In re Rhea, 207 Kan. 610, 485 P. 2d 1382.

The judgment is reversed.

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

Related

In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of B.H.
442 P.3d 457 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2019)
Frazier v. Goudschaal
295 P.3d 542 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2013)
In Re Guardianship of Williams
869 P.2d 661 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1994)
Sheppard v. Sheppard
630 P.2d 1121 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1981)
Hernandez v. Scott
575 P.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1978)
In Re Lathrop
575 P.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1978)
Shorty v. Scott
535 P.2d 1341 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1975)
Trompeter v. Trompeter
545 P.2d 297 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
505 P.2d 294, 211 Kan. 163, 1973 Kan. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbst-v-herbst-kan-1973.