Blankenship v. Blankenship, 7 Div. 336
| Decision Date | 14 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 336 |
| Parties | Gussie Mae BLANKENSHIP v. Clarence Don Q. BLANKENSHIP. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Roger F. Rice, Birmingham, for appellant.
Beddow, Gwin & Embry and Roderick Beddow, Jr., Birmingham, for appellee.
The wife (appellant here) on October 12, 1955, in an uncontested proceeding, secured a decree of divorce from the husband (appellee) on the ground of cruelty--actual violence upon her person--and was awarded the custody of the child, a boy then four years of age, with the right of the father to visit the child at reasonable times and for the child to visit him. The husband was ordered to pay the wife the sum of $50 monthly for the care, maintenance and support of the boy. The provisions of the decree relative to custody and payment for support of the child were in accordance with a written agreement signed by the husband and wife on June 1, 1955, wherein it was stated, among other things: 'That the Complainant [wife] is a fit and proper person to have the care, custody and control of their minor child,' etc.
On February 6, 1956, the divorced husband, Clarence Don Q. Blankenship, married another woman and shortly thereafter on or about July 3, 1956, he filed a petition seeking modification of the provisions of the original decree dealing with the custody of the four-year-old boy and with payments for his care, maintenance and support.
After a hearing where the testimony was taken orally, the trial judge rendered a decree of modification wherein it was provided in part as follows: 'The care, custody and control of the minor child, Donald Ray Blankenship, is hereby awarded to the respondent, Clarence Don Que Blankenship, provided, however, that the complainant herein the mother of said minor child shall have the custody of said child between the hours of nine o'clock a. m., and six o'clock p. m., on the second and fourth Sundays of each month, and the respondent herein is hereby ordered to deliver said custody to said complainant and procure said child from the custody of said complainant each such second and fourth Sunday of each month.' The original decree was further modified so as to require the father to pay only $10 per month to the mother for the support and maintenance of the boy during the periods of time he is allowed to be with her. From the decree of modification the mother has appealed to this court.
We are not going to set out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Headley v. Headley
...that questions of fact will not be overturned unless palpably wrong and contrary to the great weight of evidence, Blankenship v. Blankenship, 266 Ala. 182, 94 So.2d 743; Gardiner v. Willis, 258 Ala. 647, 64 So.2d 609; Channell v. Channell, 257 Ala. 85, 57 So.2d 549; and Johnson v. Johnson, ......
-
Gould v. Gould
...finding will not be disturbed unless plainly and palpably wrong and contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Blankenship v. Blankenship, 266 Ala. 182, 94 So.2d 743. Second, divorce decree providing for custody of a minor child will not be modified unless changed conditions are shown wh......
-
Sutton v. Sutton
...for the child to the facts of this case, with a view to presumption of correctness attendant in this type case, Blankenship v. Blankenship, 266 Ala. 182, 94 So.2d 743, this court cannot say the trial judge erred in his award. To do so would be to substitute our own judgment for that of the ......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...finding will not be disturbed unless plainly and palpably wrong and contrary to the great weight of the evidence. Blankenship v. Blankenship, 266 Ala. 182, 94 So.2d 743. 'Second, divorce decree providing for custody of a minor child will not be modified unless changed conditions are shown w......