Beyerink v. Beyerink
| Decision Date | 11 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | 47338. |
| Citation | 35 N.W.2d 458,240 Iowa 45 |
| Parties | BEYERINK v. BEYERINK. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Carlos W. Goltz and Fred S. Nordenson, both of Sioux City, for appellant.
Stewart & Hatfield and Raymond Whitmer, all of Sioux City, for appellee.
Section 598.14, Code 1946, is follows:
Prior to August 19, 1946, the parties were married and lived with their minor daughter, Marilyn, in Sioux City, Iowa. On said date, on petition of plaintiff, a decree of divorce from defendant was granted plaintiff on the ground that defendant had been guilty of such inhuman treatment as to endanger the life of plaintiff. The decree in accord with the written stipulation of the parties, provided that it should constitute a complete adjudication that plaintiff should 'have the sole care, custody and control of the minor child, Marilyn, with leave to the defendant to see and visit said child at reasonable times and places.' The stipulation and decree provided that defendant, on each Monday should pay to the Clerk of the District Court of Woodbury County, Iowa, the sum of $11, for the use and benefit of plaintiff in supporting said child, until she attained her majority, or until further order of the court. The decree provided that neither party should marry within one year from the date of the decree.
A few days after the entry of the decree, plaintiff with her child, went to the little town of Gray, Iowa, less than one hundred miles from Sioux City, where her mother, sisters and other close relatives lived, to make her home. She tesitifed, wlthout any denial from defendant, that although she would have preferred remaining in Sioux City, she left because defendant threatened violence to herself and Marilyn if she did not get out of Sioux City.
In February 1947, defendant married his present wife at Ponca, Nebraska. On July 31, 1947, under the statutory provision quoted above, defendant filed his application praying for such modification of the divorce decree 'as to the court may seem just and right in the premises relative to his rights to see his said minor child.' The only ground for the relief and the only change or circumstance subsequent to the divorce decree, alleged in the application which might have any tendency to render a modification 'expedient', is the following: 'That since the entry of said decree the plaintiff has moved to Gray, Iowa, and that upon the defendant making trips to Gray, for the purpose of seeing his minor child, the plaintiff has refused to permit defendant to see his child.'
In the resistance filed by the plaintiff this allegation is expressly denied. In addition plaintiff made numerous affirmative allegations charging that after the divorce defendant has threatened to kill her, and that on his last visit to Gray he told plaintiff that he had beat her out of money in the divorce case; that he was now going to take the little girl away from her, and that if he got the child she would never see her again, and that as long as she and the child lived both of them would be in his way. She alleged that defendant was neither a fit nor proper person to have the custody of the child for any period of time.
Defendant filed no reply denying these allegations. There was much testimony, not only by plaintiff, but from other witnesses, amply sustaining the allegations of the resistance. Defendant was a witness, but he denied none of this testimony.
The evidence establishes that plaintiff lived with her relatives for a time and clerked in a grocery store. In September 1947, she began teaching in a country school, but lived in Gray, with Marilyn in a comfortable home with modern conveniences. Marilyn attends school in town. In 1946-1947 she was in the kindergarten grade, and at the time of the trial she was in first grade and on the Honor Roll. She is happy, healthy and carefree. There is evidence that before the divorce his conduct toward the child was such that she was afraid of him.
He made three trips to see the child. The first time Marilyn was at her grandmother's home, the little girl on seeing him enter the yard, ran crying into the house and hid in a bedroom. The grandmother was gracious to him and tried to coax the child to come out, and then asked defendant to go into the bedroom and see Marilyn, but he declined. The next time defendant called he went to plaintiff's aunt's home where she and Marilyn were living. He testified that the aunt and uncle treated him with much courtesy and asked him to come in, and then they called plaintiff and Marilyn, and that while he saw Marilyn, she cried and would not visit with him. On his third visit, which was a day or two before her birthday in August 1947--after this proceeding was started--he and his wife drove to the aunt's home in Gray. Marilyn was at the store with her mother. On this occasion she came to him to get his present, but, he testified that she was crying, trembling and frightened.
On each occasion when he called there was no hindrance by plaintiff or any of her family to his seeing the child. The difficulty was the child's fear of him. There is no evidence that plaintiff or her sisters, mother or aunt ever tried to turn the child against her father. The evidence is all to the contrary. Each time he came without notice to plaintiff.
The trial court modified the divorce decree by ordering that defendant should have Marilyn for one week during the Christmas holidays, and for two weeks during the summer vacations.
I. The power of the trial court or of this court under said Code section 598.14 should be exercised only when there is a material and substantial change of condition or circumstance respecting one or both parties since the entry of the original decree rendering a modification therein expedient. The original...
To continue reading
Request your trial