Forbes v. Haney
| Decision Date | 02 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 5663,5663 |
| Citation | 133 S.E.2d 533,204 Va. 712 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALMOND F. FORBES v. JOYCE S. HANEY, ET AL. Record |
F. Lee Ford (Ford & Avis, on brief), for the appellant.
Bert A. Nachman, for appellees, James E. Sutton and Geraldine Sutton.
This is an appeal by Almond F. Forbes from a decree of the corporation court of the City of Newport News entered on November 1, 1962, awarding custody of Julia Ann Forbes, also known as Julia Ann Haney, to James E. Sutton and Geraldine Sutton, maternal grandparents of the infant.
On August 9, 1962, Forbes filed a petition in the trial court praying for an injunction seeking to restrain Mrs. Haney, the mother of Julia Ann Forbes and Brenda Joyce Haney, from removing said infant children from the jurisdiction of the court. In the petition Forbes sought the custody of both children. Mrs. Shirley Clowers, sister of Mrs. Haney, who was then in actual custody of the children, and Mrs. Haney were named parties defendant. Service was had upon Mrs. Clowers, but no service was had upon Mrs. Haney because of her absence from the city.
At a hearing on the petition on August 10, 1962, the court entered a decree enjoining Mrs. Haney and Mrs. Clowers from removing the children from the jurisdiction of the court and granted the custody of the children to Forbes.
On September 17, 1962 Mrs. Haney filed notice that she would seek the custody of the children. A hearing was had on the notice on September 28, 1962. At the time Forbes claimed to be the father of Julia Ann and it was conceded that Brenda was the daughter of Warren Haney and his wife, Joyce Sutton Haney. The court held that the mother of the children was unfit to have the custody of either child; that the custody of Julia Ann was to remain with her father and a hearing was set for October 2, 1962 to determine what should be done concerning the custody of Brenda.
On October 2, 1962 James E. Sutton and Geraldine Sutton, maternal grandparents of both infants, appeared with their attorney and requested the trial court to award custody of both children to them. The intervening of the Suttons was objected to by counsel for Forbes.
On October 5, 1962 counsel for Forbes addressed a petition to the judge in which he contended that the hearing on October 2 was invalid for lack of notice. The petition prayed that a rehearing be had. The court granted a rehearing in accord with the prayer of the petition, which rehearing was had on October 17 and October 24, 1962. At the conclusion of this ore tenus hearing the court on November 1, 1962 entered the decree here complained of which awarded custody of the infant children to the intervenors, James E. Sutton and Geraldine Sutton, and provided for support, visitation rights, etc.
In this decree the court declared that Julia Ann Forbes, 10 years of age, was the child of Joyce Haney and Almond F. Forbes, the complainant. There are several assignments of error relied upon by Forbes which resolve themselves into one question, i.e., considering the record and the wide discretion granted the trial judge in a custody proceeding did the trial court err in awarding custody of Julia Ann Forbes to her maternal grandparents in the light of her father's unfitness.
The record discloses that in 1951 Forbes and Joyce S. Haney began living together although at the time both were married to their respective spouses. This illicit relationship was to last for a period of ten years. The evidence was conflicting as to who was the father of Julia Ann. Mrs. Haney at first stated that Forbes was the father of the child, but later testified that when she was in Florida where she had gone to seek a divorce from her husband, Warren Haney, she had illicit relations with another man and that he could be the father of Julia Ann.
Julia Ann's birth certificate states that the father of the child was Mrs. Haney's former husband, Warren Haney. Therefore, as to who was the father, the court had three possibilities: Warren Haney, the unknown and unnamed man in Florida, and Almond F. Forbes. From the evidence the court decreed Forbes to be the father.
It is disclosed that in October 1952, four months after the birth of Julia Ann on July 13, 1952, Forbes and Mrs. Haney went through a marriage ceremony which was later annulled because Forbes was not divorced from his second wife at that time. Later the second wife of Forbes obtained her divorce in Ohio from him on the ground of adultery and Mrs. Haney was named and proved to be the co-respondent.
The record further discloses that Forbes lived in Ohio for a while and while there he obtained an annulment of his unlawful marriage to Mrs. Haney. After the annulment Forbes came back to Virginia and resumed living with Mrs. Haney, representing himself to be her husband. They continued to live together in this relationship from 1952 until January 1962 when they separated on account of the fact that Mrs. Haney had found another lover, one Johnnie Thomas, a married man.
While Mrs. Haney and Forbes were living together they purchased real estate, representing themselves to be husband and wife, and deceived the mortgage companies in obtaining loans on the property. This misrepresentation continued until the last home was purchased where title was recorded in the name of Forbes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Falco v. Grills
...cases.) Mullen v. Mullen, 188 Va. 259, 269, 270, 49 S.E.2d 349.' See also Sutton v. Menges, 186 Va. 805, 44 S.E. 414; Forbes v. Haney, 204 Va. 712, 133 S.E.2d 533; Lawson v. Lawson, 198 Va. 403, 94 S.E.2d 215, 14 Mich.Jur. Parent and Child, § There are decisions which hold that the domicile......
-
Anonymous C v. Anonymous B
...of the child. Farley v. Farley, 9 Va. App. 326, 327-28, 387 S.E.2d 794, 795 (1990) (emphasis added); see also Forbes v. Haney, 204 Va. 712, 716, 133 S.E.2d 533, 536 (1963) ("[T]he welfare of the child is to be regarded more highly than the technical legal rights of the parent. Where the int......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.
...testifying should not be disturbed on appeal.' Taylor v. Taylor, 128 W.Va. 198, 210, 36 S.E.2d 601, 607. See also Forbes v. Haney, 204 Va. 712, 715, 133 S.E.2d 533, 535. 'The chancellor's appraisal of testimony taken in his presence is entitled to special respect.' Napper v. Rice, 127 W.Va.......
-
Nkopchieu v. Minlend
...that “the welfare of the child is to be regarded more highly than the technical legal rights of the parent.” Forbes v. Haney, 204 Va. 712, 716, 133 S.E.2d 533, 536 (1963). Simply put, “[w]here the interest of the child demands it,” the rights of a parent “may be disregarded.” Id. Based on t......