Callaway v. Callaway, 11106
| Decision Date | 29 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 11106,11106 |
| Citation | 590 S.W.2d 700 |
| Parties | Ronald Lee CALLAWAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lois Jean CALLAWAY (Howard), Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Loren R. Honecker, Honecker & Bender, Springfield, for petitioner-appellant.
Charles E. Lee, Walker, Salveter & Stoner, Springfield, for respondent-respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of modification of child custody. Ronald Lee Callaway and Lois J. Callaway were married when he was 18 and she was 15 years of age. Laura J. Callaway was born to this marriage on August 23, 1974. After a brief unsettled period their marriage was dissolved on November 24, 1976. At that time Laura had been in the care of her paternal grandparents for approximately six months. The circumstances of her parents were summarized in the Home Study Report: neither parent was ready, mature enough, to assume responsibility for Laura. As a result, by the decree of dissolution, the child was placed in the custody of the paternal grandmother, Eleanor C. Callaway. Perhaps implying this was a temporary award, the trial court added "until further order by the Court".
On May 15, 1977, Lois married Clayton Howard. On September 6, 1977, she filed a motion to modify the decree and gain custody of her daughter. The paternal grandmother was in effect permitted to intervene and participate in the hearing in opposition to the motion. A detailed statement of the evidence would serve no useful purpose. The mother's evidence may be summarized: she now has a stable home life; she and her present husband, who is regularly employed, are able and desirous of providing a home for the child. She also presented evidence of a growing bitterness between herself and the paternal grandmother and unsatisfactory circumstances surrounding visitation. Credence is lent to this too often appearing problem by the assertive testimony of the grandmother which is reflected in the Home Study Report as follows: "(S)he honestly admits she doesn't care for Mrs. Howard and really wishes she would move away and leave them alone." The paternal grandmother resisted the motion citing the mother's instability, her lack of interest in the child, and the desire and ability of the grandparents to care for the child. It was not asserted that the father, who lived with his parents, was desirous or capable of assuming responsibility for the child.
The trial court found the issues in favor of the movant and placed the child in custody of her mother, with the father and grandmother to have visitation from 6:00 p. m. each Friday until 6:00 p. m. each Saturday. The father was ordered to pay $10.00 per week child support. The father appeals.
The scope of review by this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frederick v. Frederick
..."child bidding" as discussed herein. This court has endeavored to address a concern best summarized in the case of Callaway v. Callaway, 590 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Mo.App.1979) wherein the court concluded, "In their exceptionally well constructed and literate brief, the appellant argues the child......
-
Marriage of Carter, In re
...it is because it is expressed or implied in the decree that the award of custody to a third party is temporary. Cf. Callaway v. Callaway, 590 S.W.2d 700 (Mo.App.1979). Whatever the basis, those cases recognize that a change in circumstances of a "reformed" noncustodial parent is but one fac......
-
Searcy v. Seedorff
...App. 1991); Shortt v. Lasswell, 765 S.W.2d 387, 389 (Mo. App. 1989); Esry v. Esry, 628 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. App. 1982); Callaway v. Callaway, 590 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. App. 1979); Meinking v. Meinking, 529 S.W.2d 440 (Mo. App. 975). Under the exception, a change in circumstances of a "reformed" noncus......
-
Esry v. Esry, 12250
...circumstances to grant custody to her as opposed to grandparents who had custody because of her parental immaturity. Callaway v. Callaway, 590 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Mo.App.1979). Sherlyn should not be denied custody just because she now lives in California. It is proper to allow children to be r......