Wells v. Wells

Oregon Supreme Court

Wells v. Wells

392 P.2d 246, 237 Or. 477, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 376

DecidedMay 13, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 392 P.2d 246 (Wells v. Wells) 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

Wells v. Wells, 392 P.2d 246, 237 Or. 477, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 376 (Or. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

*478 ROSSMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant, former husband of the plaintiff, from an order of the circuit court which denied his motion to modify a decree which awarded to the plaintiff a divorce and the custody of the child of which the parties are the parents. The decree was entered May 27, 1960. The challenged order was entered April 8, 1963. The child was then ten years of age. The motion to modify was based upon a contention that the plaintiff is not a fit custodian of the child. Before its entry the circuit court heard testimony which, as transcribed, covers 204 pages. Although the evidence which raked over the muck of this shattered romance is extensive, yet, as said in Coleman v. Coleman, 236 Or 73, 386 P2d 811, a moment in the courtroom such as the alert trial judge experienced is a better index to the truth than this testimony which in many of its features appears to be a product of the spleen. The matter of preponderant importance in eases of this character is the welfare of the child. All else is secondary.

The challenged order states as a basis for its entry :

“* * * there has not been a change of circumstances and that the plaintiff is in every way a fit and proper person to continue to have the custody of the minor child.”

We have examined the evidence and are satisfied that it warrants the finding just quoted.

The record .shows that the little girl is healthy and that she is making good progress in school. It does not indicate that the mother is endeavoring to incline her daughter from its father.

We concur in the findings of the trial judge. His order is affirmed.'

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

*478 ROSSMAN, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant, former husband of the plaintiff, from an order of the circuit court which denied his motion to modify a decree which awarded to the plaintiff a divorce and the custody of the child of which the parties are the parents. The decree was entered May 27, 1960. The challenged order was entered April 8, 1963. The child was then ten years of age. The motion to modify was based upon a contention that the plaintiff is not a fit custodian of the child. Before its entry the circuit court heard testimony which, as transcribed, covers 204 pages. Although the evidence which raked over the muck of this shattered romance is extensive, yet, as said in Coleman v. Coleman, 236 Or 73, 386 P2d 811, a moment in the courtroom such as the alert trial judge experienced is a better index to the truth than this testimony which in many of its features appears to be a product of the spleen. The matter of preponderant importance in eases of this character is the welfare of the child. All else is secondary.

The challenged order states as a basis for its entry :

“* * * there has not been a change of circumstances and that the plaintiff is in every way a fit and proper person to continue to have the custody of the minor child.”

We have examined the evidence and are satisfied that it warrants the finding just quoted.

The record .shows that the little girl is healthy and that she is making good progress in school. It does not indicate that the mother is endeavoring to incline her daughter from its father.

We concur in the findings of the trial judge. His order is affirmed.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 P.2d 246, 237 Or. 477, 1964 Ore. LEXIS 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-wells-or-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack