People ex rel. Horgan v. Horgan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Horgan v. Horgan

20 A.D.2d 859, 248 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 9, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 859 (People ex rel. Horgan v. Horgan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Horgan v. Horgan, 20 A.D.2d 859, 248 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on June 21, 1963, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent, but without prejudice to an application at this time for a modification of the order in the interests of the welfare of the children. There is no proper support for the charges of the respondent-appellant mother that the trial court had predetermined the issues or that its findings and conclusions were based on matters outside the record. However, it is clear that, as indicated by the trial court, the custody of these children should be returned to and permanently vested with the mother, with proper visitation rights to the father, when and if it appears that she is of such mental fitness and stability to properly care for them. According to statements in the briefs, the mother kept custody of the children after their week-end visit to her in late June, 1963 and, so far as it appears, they are still with her. It may be that her keeping of the children, in violation of the order of June 21, 1963, constituted a contempt of court; and this determination is without prejudice to such proceedings as may have been or may be brought to punish her therefor. But, the present and future welfare of the children is the prime factor for consideration, and, under the circumstances, this question should be determined in light of the presently existing conditions. Furthermore, the order appealed from specifically provided for a reopening of the matter on or after March 12, 1964, upon the presentation of proper proof that the mother has then attained the emotional fitness to properly care for the children. The prosecution of this appeal has been unduly delayed, apparently due to the fault of the appellant (mother), with the result that it [860]*860was not reached for argument until the time so fixed in the order for a reconsideration of the matter. It would appear that the welfare of the children urgently requires reconsideration in an appropriate proceeding in the light of the present circumstances. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and ■Witmer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on June 21, 1963, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to petitioner-respondent, but without prejudice to an application at this time for a modification of the order in the interests of the welfare of the children. There is no proper support for the charges of the respondent-appellant mother that the trial court had predetermined the issues or that its findings and conclusions were based on matters outside the record. However, it is clear that, as indicated by the trial court, the custody of these children should be returned to and permanently vested with the mother, with proper visitation rights to the father, when and if it appears that she is of such mental fitness and stability to properly care for them. According to statements in the briefs, the mother kept custody of the children after their week-end visit to her in late June, 1963 and, so far as it appears, they are still with her. It may be that her keeping of the children, in violation of the order of June 21, 1963, constituted a contempt of court; and this determination is without prejudice to such proceedings as may have been or may be brought to punish her therefor. But, the present and future welfare of the children is the prime factor for consideration, and, under the circumstances, this question should be determined in light of the presently existing conditions. Furthermore, the order appealed from specifically provided for a reopening of the matter on or after March 12, 1964, upon the presentation of proper proof that the mother has then attained the emotional fitness to properly care for the children. The prosecution of this appeal has been unduly delayed, apparently due to the fault of the appellant (mother), with the result that it [860]*860was not reached for argument until the time so fixed in the order for a reconsideration of the matter. It would appear that the welfare of the children urgently requires reconsideration in an appropriate proceeding in the light of the present circumstances. Concur — McNally, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and ■Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 859, 248 N.Y.S.2d 238, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-horgan-v-horgan-nyappdiv-1964.