Pemberton v. Pemberton

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Pemberton v. Pemberton

406 S.W.2d 726, 1966 Ky. LEXIS 211

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

DecidedSeptember 30, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 406 S.W.2d 726 (Pemberton v. Pemberton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pemberton v. Pemberton, 406 S.W.2d 726, 1966 Ky. LEXIS 211 (Ky. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Appellee, Glenn Pemberton, was granted a divorce from appellant, Bona Lee Pem-berton, on the ground that she had been guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct which proved her to be unchaste. KRS 403.020 (4) (c). The custody of their three-year-old son was awarded to his father and his mother was permitted to have him visit with her one week of each month. The mother has appealed contending that she is entitled to the exclusive custody of her son.

The welfare of the child, and not the wishes of the parents, is the chief concern of the courts. McLemore v. McLemore, Ky., 346 S.W.2d 722, 92 A.L.R.2d 691. The trial judge, upon sufficient evidence of her misconduct, found that appellant had forfeited her right to have custody of the child. Appellant’s argument to the contrary is unavailing in face of her moral indiscretions which she frankly concedes. Out of an abundance of caution we look [727]*727to her contention that appellee is not fit to have custody. This argument is based on testimony to the effect that he is a very inefficient housekeeper. While this may be a matter to be considered, it is not of itself a sufficient ground to establish that a person is not suitable to have a child’s custody. In the instant case the totality of the evidence tends to show appellee’s fitness as implicitly found by the trial judge.

Appellant’s argument that appellee’s parents are not proper persons to rear the child is not before us since they were not given his custody.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

WADDILL, Commissioner.

Appellee, Glenn Pemberton, was granted a divorce from appellant, Bona Lee Pem-berton, on the ground that she had been guilty of lewd and lascivious conduct which proved her to be unchaste. KRS 403.020 (4) (c). The custody of their three-year-old son was awarded to his father and his mother was permitted to have him visit with her one week of each month. The mother has appealed contending that she is entitled to the exclusive custody of her son.

The welfare of the child, and not the wishes of the parents, is the chief concern of the courts. McLemore v. McLemore, Ky., 346 S.W.2d 722, 92 A.L.R.2d 691. The trial judge, upon sufficient evidence of her misconduct, found that appellant had forfeited her right to have custody of the child. Appellant’s argument to the contrary is unavailing in face of her moral indiscretions which she frankly concedes. Out of an abundance of caution we look [727]*727to her contention that appellee is not fit to have custody. This argument is based on testimony to the effect that he is a very inefficient housekeeper. While this may be a matter to be considered, it is not of itself a sufficient ground to establish that a person is not suitable to have a child’s custody. In the instant case the totality of the evidence tends to show appellee’s fitness as implicitly found by the trial judge.

Appellant’s argument that appellee’s parents are not proper persons to rear the child is not before us since they were not given his custody.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 S.W.2d 726, 1966 Ky. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pemberton-v-pemberton-kyctapp-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack