Adams v. Purtlebaugh
| Decision Date | 21 December 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 28712,28712 |
| Citation | 102 N.E.2d 499,230 Ind. 269 |
| Parties | ADAMS v. PURTLEBAUGH. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Len E. Bunger, Jr., Bloomington, George W. Henley, Bloomington, of counsel, for appellant.
Mellen & Mellen, Bedford, Leroy Baker, Bloomington, for appellee.
The record shows that appellant and appellee were married April 25, 1942. The child whose custody is in question was born August 11, 1943. The parties were divorced on October 1, 1945 on the petition of appellant. During the pendency of the divorce petition appellant filed his verified petition setting forth that he was on a limited furlough from the United States Army and asking that the court fix a date for the hearing of his petition to fix the custody of the child pending the litigation. On June 13, 1945 both parties appeared in person and by attorney and the petition for temporary custody of the child by agreement of the parties, was given to Grace Adams, its paternal grandmother until the trial of the action. Upon trial, October 1, 1945, an absolute divorce was granted appellant, and the care and custody of the child was given to Grace Adams, its paternal grandmother, until the further order of the court.
A petition for modification of the custody order in the divorce judgment, filed by the appellee in this case, by giving the care and custody of the child to appellee, was heard and determined by Sylvan W. Tackitt, Special Judge of the Monroe Circuit Court on April 12, 1947. The finding and judgment was against appellee on her petition, and continuing the care and custody of the child in Grace Adams, its paternal grandmother.
On September 8, 1947, appellee filed her petition for modification of the care and custody order, charging appellant and his mother, the legal custodian of the child, with contempt of the court's order, and asking that she be given the care and custody of the child and all other and proper relief in the premises. On November 20, 1947, petitioner's attorney withdrew from the case and the matter was 'dropped from the docket.'
On January 11, 1949, appellee by new attorneys, filed her verified petition to 'redocket said cause'; to restrain Grace Adams, its legal custodian from taking the child out of Monroe County, and for an order against the plaintiff and Grace Adams, requiring them to live up to and carry out the existing judgment and decree; and to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for failing to obey the judgment and decree; and for an order changing the custody of the child to appellee. The record does not disclose that any action was ever taken by the court on the motion to redocket the petition. However, it does show a trial of the petition by special judge, Edwin B. Long, who rendered his finding and judgment on July 11, 1950. The first being that 'Grace Adams is not in contempt of court as alleged in the petition.' No finding or judgment was made as to whether there had been any change in conditions with respect to the child or the parties since the original judgment was entered or since it was modified by the special judge who heard the first petition on April 12, 1947. However, the special judge made a general order with respect to the care and custody of the child as though the whole matter was before him as in the original trial of the divorce case. But of course without the evidence heard in that case, this was error. The only question being whether there had been a change in conditions since the last hearing so vital as to make it necessary for the welfare of the child, that there be a change of custody.
It will be noted that appellee's former petition for custody change was ruled upon by the court on April 12, 1947 and the petition now before us was filed September 8, 1947, so that any change in conditions cognizable under the instant petition must have occurred in the five-month period from April 12, 1947 to September 8, 1947. This petition cannot be aided, amended or supplemented by averments in the motion to redocket the cause, filed in the trial court on January 11, 1949. When the cause was redocketed, appellant's petition filed September 8, 1947 was a pending petition. It was not withdrawn or dismissed. Another petition for change of custody could not be filed or considered so long as that petition remained pending. We must, therefore, consider the trial had as being a trial of that petition.
The cause relied upon in this petition to justify the modification of the decree must be that since the last order there has been a change in conditions of such a decisive character as to make it necessary for the welfare and happiness of the child that the requested change in care and custody be made. If such a vital change in conditions is not averred and not shown by the evidence and found by the court, no change in care and custody can be made. Brown v. Beachler, 1946, 224 Ind. 477, 68 N.E.2d 915; Scott v. Scott, 1949, 227 Ind. 396, 86 N.E.2d 533; Reineke v. Northerner, 1949, 119 Ind.App. 539, 546, 84 N.E.2d 900; White v. White, 1938, 214 Ind. 405, 410, 15 N.E.2d 86. The action of the trial court reviewing the original custody judgment or that judgment as it had been amended is error.
When the divorce case was tried it was a duty of the trial court by proper judgment to fix the status of the child of the parties, prescribing the details of its custody. This part of the judgment is made for the child's benefit and it (the child) is entitled to have the order specifically executed. §§ 3-1219, 3-1221, 3-1222, Burns' 1946 Replacement. Joab et al. v. Sheets 1884, 99 Ind. 328, 332; Scott v. Scott, 1949, 227 Ind. 396, 402, 86 N.E.2d 533, and cases cited, supra.
When, as in this case, the care and custody of the child are fixed in the divorce decree rendered, the decree is binding upon the parties and the courts until it is set aside or modified for cause shown in a subsequent or supplemental proceeding in the same cause. Scott v. Scott, 1949, 227 Ind....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dufour v. Dufour
...The rule to which we refer has been consistently followed by the courts of this state, and was followed in Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269, 274, 102 N.E.2d 499, 501, wherein it was stated: 'The cause relied upon in this petition to justify the modification of the decree must be th......
-
Joe v. Lebow, 49A02-9504-JV-189
...N.E.2d 807; Mikels v. Mikels (1967) 248 Ind. 585, 228 N.E.2d 20; Wible v. Wible (1964) 245 Ind. 235, 196 N.E.2d 571; Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951) 230 Ind. 269, 102 N.E.2d 499. Thus, at the time the statutory standard was to be interpreted, it was interpreted in light of the caselaw already e......
-
Marshall v. Reeves
...of appellate review. 'In its stead they have substituted the 'decisive change in conditions' standard described in Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269, 102 N.E.2d 499, and Wible v. Wible (1964), 245 Ind. 235, 196 N.E.2d 571 (and other cases), which is an accepted rule governing the tr......
-
Marshall v. Reeves
...(1965), 247 Ind. 201, 210 N.E.2d 850, 211 N.E.2d 183; Renard v. Renard (1956), 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278; Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269, 102 N.E.2d 499. In our opinion it is in the best interests of the child that a new trial be granted pursuant to the prayer of Martha's ......