Tumbleson v. Tumbleson

Indiana Court of Appeals

Tumbleson v. Tumbleson

73 N.E.2d 59, 117 Ind. App. 455, 1947 Ind. App. LEXIS 158

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 1947

DocketNo. 17,602.

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 73 N.E.2d 59 (Tumbleson v. Tumbleson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tumbleson v. Tumbleson, 73 N.E.2d 59, 117 Ind. App. 455, 1947 Ind. App. LEXIS 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Flanagan, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a divorce to appellee and awarding him the care and custody of the minor child of the parties.

At the conclusion of the evidence the court made the following order:

“And now the court orders the probation department to investigate and report as to the conditions in the home of the parties, with reference to custody of the minor child.”

The probation department made an investigation and filed its report recommending that custody of the child be awarded to appellee. Thereafter the judgment appealed from was entered. The only question here presented is the propriety of the action of the trial court in having the investigation by its probation department and in any manner whatever considering the result thereof.

The right of trial involves the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. This right was not easily won and must not be lightly lost either from frontal attack or erosion. We have no doubt that in the instant case an able and conscientious probation officer reported to an able and conscientious judge. But if the practice should be approved another decision might be made by a less able and conscientious judge upon the report of a less able and conscientious probation officer. After all there is no difference in principle between basing a judgment upon the report *457 of a court’s probation officers and basing one upon the report of a king’s soldiers. In either instance the right of trial has been denied. See Watkins v. Watkins (1943), 221 Ind. 293, 47 N. E. (2d) 606.

Judgment reversed with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Note. — Reported in 73 N. E. (2d) 59.

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

Flanagan, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment granting a divorce to appellee and awarding him the care and custody of the minor child of the parties.

At the conclusion of the evidence the court made the following order:

“And now the court orders the probation department to investigate and report as to the conditions in the home of the parties, with reference to custody of the minor child.”

The probation department made an investigation and filed its report recommending that custody of the child be awarded to appellee. Thereafter the judgment appealed from was entered. The only question here presented is the propriety of the action of the trial court in having the investigation by its probation department and in any manner whatever considering the result thereof.

The right of trial involves the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. This right was not easily won and must not be lightly lost either from frontal attack or erosion. We have no doubt that in the instant case an able and conscientious probation officer reported to an able and conscientious judge. But if the practice should be approved another decision might be made by a less able and conscientious judge upon the report of a less able and conscientious probation officer. After all there is no difference in principle between basing a judgment upon the report *457 of a court’s probation officers and basing one upon the report of a king’s soldiers. In either instance the right of trial has been denied. See Watkins v. Watkins (1943), 221 Ind. 293, 47 N. E. (2d) 606.

Judgment reversed with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.

Note. — Reported in 73 N. E. (2d) 59.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 N.E.2d 59, 117 Ind. App. 455, 1947 Ind. App. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tumbleson-v-tumbleson-indctapp-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack