Featherston v. Featherston
| Decision Date | 15 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 509 |
| Parties | Aileen H. FEATHERSTON v. Charies N. FEATHERSTON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rowan S. Bone, Gadsden, for appellant.
Roy D. McCord and L. D. Martin, Gadsden, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Etowah County, in Equity, denying a petition to modify a decree awarding custody of minor children. On December 10, 1957, Aileen Featherston obtained a divorce from her husband, Charles Featherston, on the ground of voluntary abandonment. The custody of their four minor children was awarded to the father in accordance with an agreement of the parties. Apparently the mother was given the right to visit the children at all reasonable times. The decree of December 10, 1957, is not in the record presently under consideration.
On December 31, 1959, Aileen Featherston filed a petition seeking modification of the decree of December 10, 1957, in so far as custody of the minor children was therein awarded to their father. She prayed that the permanent custody of the children be awarded to her on the ground that since the decree of divorce Charles Featherston has conducted himself in such a manner as to show that he is not a fit and proper person to have custody of the children. She averred in an amendment to her petition that at the time she agreed for the custody of the children to be awarded to their father he agreed 'that he would give her the custody of the children' as soon as 'she got herself adjusted' and that she only agreed to temporary custody in the father because her attorney assured her that at the end of three months 'he could have the children returned to her by the court.'
After hearing witnesses testify, the court entered a decree refusing to modify the decree of December 10, 1957, except as to the mother's right to visit the children. Right of visitation was restricted to 'two hours each week and between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. on each Wednesday hereafter' in the home of the children's father.
Each case of the kind now under consideration must rest upon its own facts and circumstances with, of course, the principle always in mind that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. Hale v. Hale, 259 Ala. 666, 68 So.2d 63.
The burden was on the petitioner to show a change of conditions which would justify a change of the original decree. Andrews v. Sullivan, 260 Ala. 291, 69 So.2d 870; Raines v. Baucom, Ala., 121 So.2d 870.
We have often observed that where no good purpose would be served by setting out or discussing the evidence in detail, we will decline to do so. James v. James, 242 Ala. 140, 5 So.2d 616, and cases cited. See Hale v. Hale, supra.
It is sufficient to say that we have studied the evidence carefully. The petitioner, in our opinion, has completely failed to show that the father has become an unfit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gould v. Gould
...facts and circumstances with the principle always in cumstances with the principle always in paramount importance. Featherston v. Featherston, 271 Ala. 238, 123 So.2d 120. Fourth, where the children are of tender years, the mother is generally considered better fitted to exercise custody un......
-
Barber v. Barber
...to be granted is a matter of discretion with the court and revisable on appeal only for an abuse of such discretion. Featherston v. Featherston,271 Ala. 238, 123 So.2d 120. We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented on the motion to modify. We find no evidence to indicate an abuse of......
-
Stuckey v. Stuckey
...and circumstances with the principle always in mind that the welfare of the children is of paramount importance. Featherston v. Featherston, 271 Ala. 238, 123 So.2d 120. We further note that while remarriage of parties is not such a material change of condition as to justify modification of......
-
Thompson v. Thompson
...been said before, the presumption is rebuttable. Evidence in rebuttal must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Featherston v. Featherston, 271 Ala. 238, 123 So.2d 120. The sex of a child is material to the extent that it is shown that the particular child will fare better in the custody ......