Aud v. Etienne
| Decision Date | 18 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 43294,43294 |
| Parties | Cecilia Etienne AUD, Appellee, v. William ETIENNE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Deneen A. Watson, Harrisburg, for appellants.
Cecilia Etienne Aud, pro se, appellee.
This is an appeal by defendants, William Etienne and Cecilia Etienne, from an order of the circuit court of Saline County it a Habeas corpus proceeding. The court decreed that the petitioner, Cecilia Etienne Aud, was entitled to visitation rights with her two children, aged nine and eleven years, and further specifically provided that she should have the children on the 2nd and 4th week-ends of each month from 10 A.M. Saturday until 6 P.M. on Sunday, for two weeks in the summer of 1969 and for four weeks each summer thereafter, and that, at her option, she should have them on Christmas Eve and Easter Eve from 5 P.M. to 9 P.M., or, in the alternative, in the afternoon of Christmas and Easter.
In the main, defendant William Etienne contends that the court erred in not finding that the petitioner had forever forfeited her visitation rights by originally abandoning her children and by failing to visit them over a considerable time thereafter.
In October, 1962, while living in Indiana, petitioner left her husband and children, and in September, 1963, she obtained a divorce from him. The Indiana decree awarded custody of the children to her husband and granted her reasonable visitation rights. The husband and children then lived with his parents until January, 1968, when he remarried and moved to Galatia, Illinois. Petitioner remarried in 1964 and she lives with her husband, George Aud, in Ridgway, Illinois. Petitioner testified that she visited her children only once prior to the divorce and approximately eight times thereafter until 1968, when, with the assistance of her attorney, an oral agreement was made with defendant, providing for specific visiting times. Mr. Etienne testified that petitioner made only two or three visits prior to 1965 and that she did not see the children again until 1968 when the agreement was made. Thereafter it appears that petitioner visited the children in Galatia every other Saturday from July until December when defendant refused to allow any further visits. Petitioner then filed her petition for a writ of Habeas corpus in January, 1969.
Defendants concede that an absolute denial of divorced parents to rights of visitation would be inequitable and unjust, unless such denial was clearly shown to be in the best interest of the children, but it is argued that a parent by his conduct can forfeit this privilege. We recognize that custodial and visitation rights often become hotly contested and that through no fault of its own a child becomes a pawn in the game of bitterness and recrimination played by its divorced parents. There is no question here of the fitness of either parent. Nor is there any evidence that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilke v. Culp
...upheld. Id. at 302, 445 A.2d 1182, citing Radford v. Matczuk, 223 Md. 483, 164 A.2d 904 (1960) (10 years); Aud v. Etienne, 47 Ill.2d 110, 264 N.E.2d 196 (1970) (6 years); Commonwealth ex rel. Boschert v. Cook, 122 Pa.Super. 397, 186 A. 229 (Super.Ct.1936) (9 to 10 years). See also Commonwea......
-
Blazina v. Blazina, 76--36
...clearly shown. Broad discretion must be vested in the trial court, (Rodely v. Rodely, 28 Ill.2d 347, 350, 192 N.E.2d 347; Aud v. Etienne, 47 Ill.2d 110, 264 N.E.2d 196) and the right should not be denied unless the court is convinced that the visitations are detrimental to the best interest......
-
Hawkins v. Hawkins
...192; Zechman v. Zechman (1945), 391 Ill. 510, 63 N.E.2d 499; Rodely v. Rodely (1963), 28 Ill.2d 347, 192 N.E.2d 347; Aud v. Etienne (1970), 47 Ill.2d 110, 264 N.E.2d 196; Chodzko v. Chodzko (1976), 66 Ill.2d 28, 4 Ill.Dec. 313, 360 N.E.2d 60.) We hold that this common law tradition has cont......
-
Valencia v. Valencia
...an innocent child 'becomes a pawn in the game of bitterness and recrimination played by its divorced parents.' (Aud v. Etienne, 47 Ill.2d 110, 112, 264 N.E.2d 196, 197 (1970).) In addition to deciding which parent is to have the care and custody of the child, a court must, where called upon......