Bestel v. Bestel
Decision Date | 14 January 1936 |
Citation | 153 Or. 100,53 P.2d 525 |
Parties | BESTEL v. BESTEL. [*] |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Clarence H. Gilbert Judge.
Suit for divorce by Malka Bestel against Fred Bestel, wherein plaintiff was granted a decree of divorce and custody of their minor child. From an order awarding custody of the child to defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions..
See also, 44 P.2d 1078.
F. Leo Smith, of Portland, for appellant.
Benj. B. Goodman, of Portland, for respondent.
On September 5, 1934, in a suit then pending in the circuit court for Multnomah county and heard before the Honorable Clarence H. Gilbert, one of the judges thereof, the plaintiff, Malka Bestel, was granted a decree of divorce from the defendant, Fred Bestel, and was awarded the custody of their minor child, Frederic Bestel, then about fifteen months of age.
On January 24, 1935, the defendant filed a motion in said court supported by his own affidavit alone, praying that the child be taken from its mother and be awarded to him. This affidavit wholly failed to show that any change in the condition of things had occurred after the entry of the decree or that any valid grounds existed warranting a modification of the decree in respect to the custody of the child. Affidavits in opposition thereto were filed on behalf of the plaintiff, and on January 30, 1935, a hearing was had on said affidavits, the plaintiff being present at the time with her witnesses and not being permitted to offer any testimony, either for or against the motion, but at that time she was directed to bring the child into court. Thereafter and on February 4, 1935, and while the plaintiff was present in court with the child, without making or entering any written order and purely on the verbal order of Judge Gilbert, the child was taken from the custody of the mother and delivered over to the Waverly Baby Home, where it was kept for fifty-six days. Subsequently and on the 28th day of March, 1935, another hearing was had before Judge Gilbert at which time the plaintiff was present and not permitted to testify or offer any evidence in her behalf. Another verbal order was made, directing that the custody of the child should be awarded to the father for the period of six months and after the expiration of that period that it should be turned over to the mother for a like period of time and that thereafter the custody of the child should alternate between them for like periods of time until the child should reach the age of six years, at which time it was directed that an order should then be made determining who should have the permanent custody of the child. At this hearing on March 28 1935, the only testimony was that of Mrs. Neth, the chief probation officer of the department of domestic relations, over which Judge Gilbert, in addition to his duties as circuit judge, has jurisdiction under the statute. The testimony given by this probation officer was wholly hearsay and none of it was competent or admissible as evidence in the case. From this order last referred to, which was not entered of record until April 6, 1935, and was then entered as a nunc pro tunc order as of March 26, 1935, the plaintiff has appealed.
Until April, 1935, no entry of any order in respect to any of the matters above referred to was made of record and everything that had been done in respect to the custody of this child was done pursuant to the verbal orders of the court, and there was no record made of any of said proceedings except merely the filing of said affidavits, and all orders entered in respect to any of said matters were nunc pro tunc orders entered long after these verbal orders had been made, and from each and all of these orders it appears that the court acted on information secretly conveyed to him by Mrs. Neth, whom he had ordered to make an investigation, none of which said information was or ever has been made a matter of record in said cause.
The order appealed from is in the following words:
The other nunc pro tunc orders read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scarth v. Scarth
...to the defendant, was held insufficient on which to base a judgment of contempt. In Bestel v. Bestel, 153 Or. 100, 108, 44 P.2d 1078, 53 P.2d 525, it was held that an order changing the custody of a minor child can only be made after notice and an opportunity to be heard. And in Griffin v. ......
-
Leonard v. Hoppins, 8807.
...591;Cummer v. Cummer, 283 Ill.App. 220; Ex parte Saunders, 76 Cal.App.2d 635, 173 P.2d 818;Bestel v. Bestel, 153 Or. 100, 44 P.2d 1078,53 P.2d 525; 2 Schouler, Marriage and Divorce, 6th Ed., § 1899, 19 C.J. 350, 351; 27 C.J.S., Divorce, § 317. The order filed September 16, 1947 and the orde......
-
Rea v. Rea
...Court of Illinois it was held that the court committed error and the order was reversed. In Bestel v. Bestel, 153 Or. 100, 44 P.2d 1078, 53 P.2d 525, 526, the plaintiff was awarded a divorce from her husband and custody of the child of the parties. Thereafter the defendant moved for change ......
-
Leonard v. Hoppins
... ... Phillips, 24 W.Va. 591; Cummer v. Cummer, 283 ... Ill.App. 220; Ex parte Saunders, 76 Cal.App.2d 635, 173 P.2d ... 818; Bestel v. Bestel, 153 Or. 100, 44 P.2d 1078, 53 ... P.2d 525; 2 Schouler, Marriage and Divorce, 6th Ed., § 1899, ... 19 C.J. 350, 351; 27 C.J.S., ... ...