Jordan v. Jordan

32 P.2d 590, 147 Or. 200, 1934 Ore. LEXIS 112
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedMay 2, 1934
StatusPublished

This text of 32 P.2d 590 (Jordan v. Jordan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jordan v. Jordan, 32 P.2d 590, 147 Or. 200, 1934 Ore. LEXIS 112 (Or. 1934).

Opinion

BELT, J.

On May 13, 1930, plaintiff obtained a decree of divorce against the defendant, on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. In this suit the defendant filed a cross-complaint praying for a decree and asking for the custody of their minor child, a little girl who was at that, time about four years of age. The trial court refused to award the custody of the child to either parent and placed her “in a neutral home where the mother may live and be with the child”, granting to the father the right of reasonable visitation. On *201 June 8, 1932, the plaintiff filed a motion to modify the decree by awarding her the custody of the child. From the order denying this motion the plaintiff appeals.

In the hearing on the motion to modify the decree the testimony shows without contradiction that the mother is a fit and proper person to have the custody of this child. There is not a scintilla of evidence to the effect that she is immoral or that she would not love and cherish this little girl who for two or three years has been the subject of bitter controversy between the parents. It appears from the record that the father is wholly unfit and that it would be a travesty of justice to award the child to him. It may be that this little girl is being properly fed and clothed in an institution, but this is no reason to deprive the mother of her natural and paramount right to have her baby. Citation of authorities is deemed unnecessary.

It follows that the decree of the lower court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to modify the decree in accordance with the motion of the plaintiff.

Rand', C. J., and Rossman and Campbell, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
32 P.2d 590, 147 Or. 200, 1934 Ore. LEXIS 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-jordan-or-1934.