Russell v. Russell

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Russell v. Russell

202 A.2d 921

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 7, 1964

Docket3508

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 202 A.2d 921 (Russell v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. Russell, 202 A.2d 921 (D.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

QUINN, Associate Judge.

At the conclusion of this divorce proceeding the mother was awarded custody of the six-year-old female child of the parties while the father was awarded custody of the male children, ages seventeen and fifteen. The sole question on appeal is whether the award of $20 each week for the support of the female child was excessive. The testimony established that the father earned approximately $62 a week.

It is settled that a father has a legal duty to provide for his children and that the measure of that duty is the chil[922]*922dren’s needs and the father’s financial ability to pay. Schneider v. Schneider, 78 U.S. App.D.C. 383, 385, 141 F.2d 542, 544 (1944). Nevertheless, the father’s obligation should only be enforced in a manner commensurate with his financial position. Payton v. Payton, D.C.App., 187 A.2d 899, 900 (1963). As we said in Johnson v. Johnson, D.C.Mun.App., 163 A.2d 127-128 (1960):

“It is a fundamental and well-known proposition of law that a court of equity shall be guided by considerations of fairness and justice while exercising its discretionary powers in the area of maintenance and support. Though seeking to enforce the husband’s family obligations and provide needed assistance for his wife and children, the court should, at the same time, remain equally mindful of the husband’s welfare and avoid penalizing him by the imposition of harsh financial terms. * * * ”

See also Bell v. Bell, D.C.App., 190 A.2d 265 (1963).

Considering the father’s financial position and obligations, the award in the case at bar was a generous one. While it approached the limits of the trial court’s discretionary power, we cannot say it was unsupported by the record. The needs of a six-year-old child can adequately withstand thté test of a twenty-dollar weekly award. However, should this allowance prove unduly burdensome, the father may seek relief by petitioning the court for a suitable adjustment. Bell v. Bell, supra; Johnson v. Johnson, supra; see Butts v. Butts, D.C.App., 192 A.2d 294 (1963).

. Affirmed.

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

QUINN, Associate Judge.

At the conclusion of this divorce proceeding the mother was awarded custody of the six-year-old female child of the parties while the father was awarded custody of the male children, ages seventeen and fifteen. The sole question on appeal is whether the award of $20 each week for the support of the female child was excessive. The testimony established that the father earned approximately $62 a week.

It is settled that a father has a legal duty to provide for his children and that the measure of that duty is the chil[922]*922dren’s needs and the father’s financial ability to pay. Schneider v. Schneider, 78 U.S. App.D.C. 383, 385, 141 F.2d 542, 544 (1944). Nevertheless, the father’s obligation should only be enforced in a manner commensurate with his financial position. Payton v. Payton, D.C.App., 187 A.2d 899, 900 (1963). As we said in Johnson v. Johnson, D.C.Mun.App., 163 A.2d 127-128 (1960):

“It is a fundamental and well-known proposition of law that a court of equity shall be guided by considerations of fairness and justice while exercising its discretionary powers in the area of maintenance and support. Though seeking to enforce the husband’s family obligations and provide needed assistance for his wife and children, the court should, at the same time, remain equally mindful of the husband’s welfare and avoid penalizing him by the imposition of harsh financial terms. * * * ”

See also Bell v. Bell, D.C.App., 190 A.2d 265 (1963).

Considering the father’s financial position and obligations, the award in the case at bar was a generous one. While it approached the limits of the trial court’s discretionary power, we cannot say it was unsupported by the record. The needs of a six-year-old child can adequately withstand thté test of a twenty-dollar weekly award. However, should this allowance prove unduly burdensome, the father may seek relief by petitioning the court for a suitable adjustment. Bell v. Bell, supra; Johnson v. Johnson, supra; see Butts v. Butts, D.C.App., 192 A.2d 294 (1963).

. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-russell-dc-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack