DeGrange v. Kline
| Decision Date | 24 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 306,306 |
| Parties | Charles Edward DeGRANGE, Sr. v. K. S. KLINE et ux. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Calvin E. Johnson, Baltimore (Harry I. Kaplan, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Irvin N. Caplan, Baltimore (Robert J. Romadka, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Before HAMMOND, C. J., and MARBURY, McWILLIAMS, FINAN and SINGLEY, JJ.
Charles Edward DeGrange appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City dated October 1 1968, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for custody of his minor child, Charles Edward DeGrange, Jr., and granted the custody of the boy to the appellees, K. S. Kline and his wife June Kline on their cross petition for custody.
The appellant DeGrange married his third and present wife, Barbara DeGrange, on October 27, 1959, and one child Charles Edward DeGrange, Jr., whose custody is the subject of this proceeding, was born on April 23, 1962. Appellant has two other children by his previous marriages, both of whom are in the custody of their mothers. In the summer of 1964, Mrs. DeGrange left their marital home in New Jersey and went to Florida with her son in the company of a male friend. Appellant traveled to Florida to bring his family home. On their return trip, appellant left his wife and son with the appellees Kline, where they stayed for three months. Mrs. Kline is the appellant's sister. Thereafter, the mother and child returned to New Jersey to live with the appellant. The DeGranges separated in March or April of 1966, and Charles, Jr. remained with his mother. A support agreement was reached by the DeGranges, but the appellant admitted that he never paid any of the support that he was obligated to pay, explaining that his wife had disappeared.
During the period between August 1966 and July 1967, DeGrange did not see his son. He testified that he did not know where the boy was staying. However, in July 1967, he discovered that the boy was living with the appellees and went to visit him at their house. After the appellees refused to surrender the child to DeGrange he brought this action for custody of his son.
The issue on appeal is whether the lower court erred in awarding custody of the boy to his aunt and uncle instead of to his natural father.
Following his dishonorable discharge from the United States Air Force after a court-martial conviction for larceny, the appellant has been steadily employed as a tool and die maker. He testified that he worked from six to seven days per week, averaging a seventy-hour work week. If awarded custody of his son, he stated that he would leave the boy at the home of his employer's wife during the day and pick him up at night after work.
Mrs. DeGrange, the estranged wife, testified that her husband was not a fit and proper person to have custody of their son, explaining that he drank and worked too much. Appellee June Kline stated that she had observed the appellant give his son alcoholic drinks. DeGrange admitted that once in a while he would give his son some beer and that he had occasionally taken him to a tavern.
The record contains much testimony that when the Klines took custody of the boy he was in poor health. A neighbor described Charles as 'very nervous, pale, underweight' when he first came to live with the appellees. The Klines have given him proper medical attention and have procured treatment for the child's heart murmur. According to several witnesses, since the appellees have been raising the child his health and habits have improved considerably. Mr. and Mrs. Kline, who have no children of their own, both exhibited a strong desire to raise the boy as their own son. Although Mrs. Kline was employed at the time of the hearing she testified that she and her husband planned to move to Middlesburg, Pennsylvania, and that she would quit her job.
At common law, the father was usually entitled to custody and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Hoffman
...may interfere at any time and in any way to protect and advance their welfare and interests.' (emphasis added). See DeGrange v. Kline, 254 Md. 240, 243, 254 A.2d 353 (1969); McClary v. Follett, Jr., 226 Md. 436, 441, 174 A.2d 66 (1961); Melton v. Connolly, 219 Md. 184, 188, 148 A.2d 387 (19......
-
Monroe v. Monroe
...and admissibility of evidence, but as the standard for determining the ultimate decision in the case. See, e.g., DeGrange v. Kline, 254 Md. 240, 254 A.2d 353 (1969); Melton v. Connolly, 219 Md. 184, 148 A.2d 387 (1959); Trenton v. Christ, 216 Md. 418, 140 A.2d 660 (1958); Ross v. Pick, 199 ......
-
McDermott v. Dougherty
...period rendered it in child's best interest to remain with aunt despite father's petition for custody); DeGrange v. Kline, 254 Md. 240, 254 A.2d 353 (1969) (holding that divorced father's long hours working as tool and die maker during which time child would be left in care of non-relatives......
-
Koshko v. Haining
...upon the parties opposing them to show the contrary.")); Ross v. Hoffman, 280 Md. at 177-78, 372 A.2d at 586-87; DeGrange v. Kline, 254 Md. 240, 242-43, 254 A.2d 353, 354 (1969); accord Troxel, 530 U.S. at 69, 120 S.Ct. at 2062. This presumption is premised on the notion that "the affection......