Hoder v. Hoder

227 A.2d 750, 245 Md. 705, 1967 Md. LEXIS 568
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedApril 6, 1967
Docket[No. 146, September Term, 1966.]
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 227 A.2d 750 (Hoder v. Hoder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoder v. Hoder, 227 A.2d 750, 245 Md. 705, 1967 Md. LEXIS 568 (Md. 1967).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The mother of two small children contends that the chancellor erred in awarding custody of the children to their father.

Judge Jones found that the mother, who had moved back to Baltimore from the family home in Florida, was carrying on an adulterous relationship with a married man by whom she had an illegitimate child when she was fifteen and that this man was the important, overriding consideration of her life, far *706 more so than the children, and came to the following conclusion :

“Bringing up two young children in such an atmosphere with the mother’s paramour being the dominant figure in her life and in the children’s surroundings is not conducive to the welfare and best interests of the children. Here the mother has not overcome the strong presumption that she should not, under the circumstances outlined, have the children. Hild v. Hild, 221 Md. 349; Parker v. Parker, 222 Md. 69; Palmer v. Palmer, 238 Md. 327.”

Judge Jones found, in addition, that the mother’s temperament, character and past attitude towards the children did not qualify her as a fit mother and, judging the future by the past, was unwilling to “gamble with the future welfare of these young children by letting them remain with their mother.” The father was found to be a fit parent.

We think the testimony permitted the findings of the chancellor and see no reason to disturb her exercise of judgment and discretion under the circumstances. Cupps v. Cupps, 245 Md. 700, and cases cited.

Decree affirmed, costs to be paid by the appellee.

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

Related

Montgomery County Department of Social Services v. Sanders
381 A.2d 1154 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1978)
Ouellette v. Ouellette
229 A.2d 129 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
Pratt v. Pratt
228 A.2d 611 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1967)
Miller v. Miller
228 A.2d 311 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 A.2d 750, 245 Md. 705, 1967 Md. LEXIS 568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoder-v-hoder-md-1967.