Barrett v. Barrett
Decision Date | 14 August 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 19676,19676 |
Citation | 198 S.E.2d 532,261 S.C. 111 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | James D. BARRETT, Respondent, v. Mary Ann BARRETT (Bowser), Appellant. |
Watkins, Vandiver, Kirven, Long & Gable, Anderson, for appellant.
Abrams, Bowen & Townes, Greenville, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a clearly erroneous order of the Greenville County Family Court ordering a change of the permanent custody of the children of the parties hereto. The parties were long time residents of Ohio but separated some time in 1970, the respondent husband returning to Greenville which was his early childhood home. On April 22, 1971, the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, granted the appellant wife a divorce from her husband on the ground of 'gross neglect of duty'. At the time, the parties had three children, Deborah, age 10; Andrea, age 8; and Franklin who was nearly 2. The parties agreed that the wife would have the care, custody and control of the minor children, but the husband to have the temporary custody of them during the summer vacation, with the stipulation that he should come to Cleveland to pick up the children and return them no later than one week prior to school registration. Such custody agreement was incorporated in the divorce decree and the husband was ordered to pay the wife $15.50 per week for the support of each child, plus all necessary medical expenses.
On or about June 27, 1971, the husband went to Cleveland, got the children and took them to Greenville for the summer vacation. Instead of returning the children to Cleveland at the end of the summer in accordance with the agreement and divorce decree, the husband, on August 25, 1971, instituted this action seeking temporary and permanent custody of the three minor children. The record is not clear, but inferentially, an ex parte order was issued granting the husband temporary custody.
The wife was never personally served with any notice of pleadings whatsoever, and the children not being returned, she came to Greenville and sought the aid of the sheriff, seeking to regain her children on the strength of the Ohio decree, and through the sheriff's office learned of the instant proceeding.
A hearing on the husband's petition for permanent custody was not held until June 20, 1972, and not until November 3, 1972 did the court issue its order granting the permanent care, custody and control of the children of the parties to the respondent.
In the fairly recent case of Sayler v. Parler, 258 S.C. 514, 189 S.E.2d 294 (1972), we held as follows:
In Ohio, the doctrine of res judicata applies to that portion of the divorce decree that grants custody, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. Cobb
...which substantially affects the interest and welfare of the child. Jones v. Ard, 265 S.C. 423, 219 S.E.2d 358 (1975); Barrett v. Barrett,261 S.C. 111, 198 S.E.2d 532 (1972); Pullen v. Pullen, 253 S.C. 123, 169 S.E.2d 376 (1969). Generally, the change of conditions which justifies a change o......
-
Pountain v. Pountain, 2849.
...is a circumstance which when considered with other change of circumstances, may warrant a change of custody); Barrett v. Barrett, 261 S.C. 111, 198 S.E.2d 532 (1973) (remarriage is normally relevant to show improved circumstances on the part of a remarried parent seeking to obtain Additiona......
- Gunnells v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.
-
Jones v. Ard, 20104
...of custody must prove a change of conditions which substantially affect the interest and welfare of the child, Barrett v. Barrett, 261 S.C. 111, 198 S.E.2d 532 (1973); Pullen v. Pullen, 253 S.C. 123, 169 S.E.2d 376 In this case the judge had before him the court records, testimony of the pa......
-
Chapter Ten Child Custody
...of the circumstances of a custodial parent or that the welfare of the child would be improved by changing custody. Barrett v. Barrett, 261 S.C. 111, 198 S.E.2d 532 (1973), which explained the law as follows: The only change of circumstance of any substance whatever disclosed by the evidence......