Armstrong v. Armstrong, No. 6503.
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | Vandeventer |
| Citation | 185 S.W.2d 845 |
| Parties | ARMSTRONG v. ARMSTRONG. |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 6503. |
v.
ARMSTRONG.
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Louis H. Schult, Judge.
Suit for divorce by Leslie Lee Armstrong against Frankie Anna Armstrong. Decree for plaintiff, and, from an order modifying the decree by awarding the custody of one of the parties' minor children to defendant on her motion, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
R. F. Baynes, of New Madrid, for appellant.
VANDEVENTER, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of New Madrid County modifying a previous divorce decree, relative to the control and custody of a minor female child, Betty Sue Armstrong, age six, by giving it to respondent, her mother. In the original decree, the control and custody of Betty Sue and her two brothers, Leslie Morgan and Billy Jean had been awarded to appellant, their father, who, dissatisfied with the order of modification as to Betty Sue, appealed therefrom. Appellant has filed a brief and vigorously asserts that there was not sufficient evidence of changed circumstances since the original decree to justify the court's action. Respondent has furnished no brief.
The hearing was had on the motion to modify, September 22, 1943, and the court took it under advisement until the 27th of September, 1943, when it modified the original decree, leaving with appellant the custody and control of Leslie Morgan Armstrong, age eight, and giving respondent the custody and control of Betty Sue Armstrong, age six. Nothing was said in the order as to the care and custody of Billy Jean Armstrong, age four, apparently for the reason that he had never been within the jurisdiction of the court since long before the divorce decree was granted.
The Abstract of the Record shows that the decree of divorce was rendered on the 14th day of September, 1942, and that service was had upon respondent by publication. The uncontradicted evidence shows that she knew nothing whatever about the pendency or determination of the suit until she came home to see her children about the 5th day of December, 1942, although appellant had corresponded with her after the decree was rendered and had written her as late as December 4, 1943, stating that he was coming to her. At no time had he mentioned that a divorce had been granted or applied for. The evidence further shows that respondent had been in ill health since the birth of Billy Jean Armstrong, age four at the time of the hearing on the motion to modify; that respondent left home in August, 1939, and stayed with her sisters, her brother and her mother at various places, but that until early in 1943, her health was such that she was unable to be steadily employed and could not support and care for her infant children. Early in 1943, her health having improved, she obtained a position with The United Rubber Company at South Bend, Indiana, where her wages had been as high as $80 per week, varying between that sum and $40 as a weekly minimum, and this amount after such deductions as were made from the salary of employees. She had held this position until a short time before the hearing, when she had obtained "separation papers to transfer to St. Louis" from the company, permitting her to change positions and it was her intention to move to St. Louis and work for the same company, it having another factory in that city. She testified that she could be with her children every night and that her sister, Georgia Brown Hobbs, 33 years of age and single, had agreed to move to St. Louis, live with her and take care of her children while she was at work. Respondent attempted to visit her children in May, 1943, but the flood waters prevented and she only visited with them at the school house for a few minutes and then only in the presence of appellant's mother, with whom respondent's relations did not seem to be very cordial.
The evidence also showed that since the decree of divorce and for sometime prior thereto, Leslie Morgan Armstrong and Betty Sue Armstrong had been living at the home of the parents of appellant; that appellant had remarried in the summer of 1943, but had separated from his wife and had for sometime, prior to the hearing on the motion to modify, been living at Wardell and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wakefield, In re, No. 44872
...but also material facts existing at the time of the decree but unknown to or concealed from the court. Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845, and authorities there cited. This court may not, sua sponte, issue any directions to the circuit court, for this is not an appeal. We note ......
-
Graves v. Wooden, Nos. 7457
...this instance defendant, has carried his burden of showing by a preponderance of the credible evidence [Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845, 847(6); Morgens v. Morgens, Mo.App., 164 S.W.2d 626, 632(3)] changed facts and circumstances which, in the best interests of the child, re......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 32966
...best interests of the child, require a modification of the custodial provisions of the original decree. Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845; and Davis v. Davis, The record must be reviewed carefully to determine if the welfare and best interests of the son, Gregory, will be prom......
-
State v. Pogue, No. 7344
...consideration to which all others must yield [Ex parte Ferone, Mo.App., 267 S.W.2d 695, 700(1); Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845, 847(2); Ex parte Schultz, 237 Mo.App. 1107, 180 S.W.2d 613, 615(1)]; but, until otherwise shown, it is to be presumed that the best interests of t......
-
Wakefield, In re, No. 44872
...but also material facts existing at the time of the decree but unknown to or concealed from the court. Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845, and authorities there cited. This court may not, sua sponte, issue any directions to the circuit court, for this is not an appeal. We note ......
-
Graves v. Wooden, Nos. 7457
...this instance defendant, has carried his burden of showing by a preponderance of the credible evidence [Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845, 847(6); Morgens v. Morgens, Mo.App., 164 S.W.2d 626, 632(3)] changed facts and circumstances which, in the best interests of the child, re......
-
Smith v. Smith, No. 32966
...best interests of the child, require a modification of the custodial provisions of the original decree. Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845; and Davis v. Davis, The record must be reviewed carefully to determine if the welfare and best interests of the son, Gregory, will be prom......
-
State v. Pogue, No. 7344
...consideration to which all others must yield [Ex parte Ferone, Mo.App., 267 S.W.2d 695, 700(1); Armstrong v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 185 S.W.2d 845, 847(2); Ex parte Schultz, 237 Mo.App. 1107, 180 S.W.2d 613, 615(1)]; but, until otherwise shown, it is to be presumed that the best interests of t......