Atkinson v. Atkinson
| Decision Date | 24 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 31593,31593 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | ATKINSON, v. ATKINSON. |
Joseph H. Johnston, Port Angeles, for appellant.
Conniff & Taylor, Port Angeles, for cross-appellant and respondent.
The husband appealed from that portion of the divorce decree that awarded the custody of the six-year-old boy to the wife; and she cross-appealed from the division of property made in the divorce decree.
The parties had been married twenty-four years. Their older daughter was married and living in eastern Washington; the other daughter was nineteen; and there were two boys, twelve and six years of age. Their home was in Eden valley, which seems to have been a misnomer. They owned some three hundred acres of secondgrowth timberland, about twenty acres of which was cleared and improved, there being an old house on the tract. The personal property consisted of furniture and fixtures, twenty-one head of livestock, a 1934 pickup truck, a comparatively new Ford tractor and disc. (Cash in the bank at the commencement of the action amounted to $680, of which the wife received $480.)
Both parties were awarded a divorce. The custody of the nineteen-year-old daughter and the twelve-year-old son was awarded to the father, and of this Mrs. Atkinson makes no complaint. The six-year-old boy was awarded to the mother, and it is from this portion of the decree that Mr. Atkinson appeals.
It not being practicable to divide the property, it was awarded to Mr. Atkinson, with the requirement that he pay Mrs. Atkinson twenty-five hundred dollars at the rate of thirty dollars a month, together with twenty dollars a month for the support of the boy whose custody was awarded to her; and it is from the inadequacy of this award that Mrs. Atkinson prosecutes her appeal.
There was an offer of testimony from both daughters to the effect that their mother had, over a long period of time and entirely without justification, accused each of them of having sexual relations with their father; and the trial court indicated that it would consider that testimony as being before the court without the necessity of their testimony being taken. Mr. Atkinson testified as to her accusations of similar import directed at him during the same period of time. The trial court said in its oral decision:
It is apparent that Mrs. Atkinson had, by her own attitude, turned both of the girls and the twelve-year-old boy against her.
We quote now from the findings of fact: '* * * that she has an ungovernable temper; is unreasonably jealous; has not properly cared for the home of the parties or the minor children, all of which acts were without just cause or provocation.'
It is our feeling that the evidence in this case supports the trial court's finding above set forth, and that it does not support the finding, also made, that Mrs. Atkinson is a fit and proper person to have the care, custody, and control of the children. (We have not overlooked the testimony of numerous neighbors, but they had little opportunity to know the conditions existing within the home.)
After the trial court had indicated in its oral decision that it would give the custody of the six-year-old boy to Mrs. Atkinson, there was a motion on behalf of Mr. Atkinson to reopen the case for further testimony as to her fitness. A doctor who had examined her made an affidavit that he would testify that her mind was so unbalanced that she was not responsible and should not have the care and custody of any small child. Other medical testimony, of a hypothetical character, was also offered.
From a technical standpoint, the trial court was justified in refusing to reopen the case for the proffered testimony, as it could have been offered at the trial and was cumulative; and we find no error in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andreesen v. Andreesen
...here: Bowler v. Bowler, 355 Mich. 686, 96 N.W.2d 129, 74 A.L.R.2d 1068; Stoll v. Stoll, 243 Minn. 510, 68 N.W.2d 367; Atkinson v. Atkinson, 38 Wash.2d 769, 231 P.2d 641. These decisions and others recognize it is unwise for a child to be placed with a parent whose mental condition is simila......
-
In re Marriage of Rasmussen, No. 33103-9-II (Wash. App. 10/10/2006)
...But it may not assign a value that is outside the scope of evidence. See Soriano, 31 Wn. App. at 435; see also Atkinson v. Atkinson, 38 Wn.2d 769, 772-73, 231 P.2d 641 (1951). The trial court is required to determine the facts based on the record before it. Worthington, 73 Wn.2d at 766. And......
-
Worthington v. Worthington
...the $50 valuation placed by the court upon the timberlands owned in common by the plaintiff and his brother. See Atkinson v. Atkinson, 38 Wash.2d 769, 231 P.2d 641 (1951); Blood v. Blood, supra; Hogberg v. Hogberg, supra; Dickison v. Dickison, supra; Graham v. Graham, supra. There was no at......
-
Saffer v. Saffer
...in awarding to respondent the custody of the two minor daughters. Taylor v. Taylor, 14 Wash.2d 293, 126 P.2d 855; Atkinson v. Atkinson, 38 Wash.2d 769, 231 P.2d 641. That appellant is a fit and proper person to have the custody of his daughters seems not to be disputed. His testimony as to ......