Frantzen v. Frantzen
| Decision Date | 20 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 13809,13809 |
| Citation | 349 S.W.2d 765 |
| Parties | Reinhardt L. FRANTZEN, Appellant, v. Betti Rose FRANTZEN, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Petsch & Petsch, Dooley & Hoerster, Fredericksburg, for appellant.
Joe D. Prickett, San Antonio, for appellee.
The following statement of the nature and result of the suit, as well as the material allegations of plaintiff's petition, is copied from appellant's brief:
'This suit was filed in January, 1959, wherein Appellant sought a divorce and the custody of the children of the marriage--boys--one born on March 28, 1955, and the other August 28, 1957. Exceptions to husband's--Appellant's--Petition were sustained and the cause dismissed on January 14, 1961; to this Decree Appellant excepted in open court and gave Notice of Appeal * * *.
'The parties were married January 24, 1953, and up to the development of the controversy culminating in this suit, they lived in harmony and worked enthusiastically in their determination to provide security for the family and most especially to give the boys such education and training advantages as were calculated to develop them as moral, substantial and patriotic citizens. Accordingly, both parties joined the same Church, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, participated in political affairs, the Defendant becoming the Woman Chairman of the Women's County Republican Organization, and Plaintiff--especially with a view of impressing the sons with the importance of the organization--became a Boy Scout Leader. Thus, by both precept and example, the parties were engaged in doing their utmost to encourage the children to become intelligent, patriotic citizens, taking part in the affairs of Government and ever ready to defend the Nation from attack by those who would destroy it from within or without. * * *
'The first challenge to the aspirations of the family presented itself to Appellant on a night in April, 1958, when upon his return from a Scout Meeting, he found Appellee in company with--apparently engaged in a conference, known as a 'Study Session'--with three members of the local Jehovah Witness Organization. As soon as the parties to the cause were alone, Appellant expressed his apprehension to Appellee and requested her to desist in further studying with the group. Appellee refused, claiming Appellant's apprehension unfounded and insisted that Appellee meet with the Appellee and the local Jehovah Witness leader--'Pioneer'--so as to become informed of the true purposes of the Jehovah Witnesses. * * * In this meeting, the Appellant was informed by the Pioneer, Jehovah Witnesses believe and advocate that: (a) 'All world governments are ruled by the devil', (b) for such reason Jehovah Witnesses refuse to take part in any governmental activities such as voting, offering for public office, service on juries, refuse to salute the Flag and to pledge allegiance to any Nation; (c) refuse to serve in the Armed Forces, even to defend the Country against an aggressor who would enslave our people; (d) theirs, the religion of the Jehovah Witnesses, is the only true religion and only a select few are permitted to go to Heaven, (e) Jehovah Witnesses refuse to permit their children to join such character-building and patriotic organizations as Boy or Girl Scouts, Young Men's and Young Women's Christian Associations, (f) refuse to grant permission for the administration of blood transfusions even in case of severe illness involving the danger of loss of life; (g) and the Jehovah Witness beliefs and doctrines are so strong that unless both husband and wife are cobelievers, divorce will as a general rule result.
'As a result of the discussion immediately following this meeting, the Appellee in the interest of the children agreed to remain away from the Study Sessions and the family continued to live happily together. * * *
'About the middle of August following--at the near-midnight return home-Appellee admitted that she had broken her promise, had been secretly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quiner v. Quiner
...(1945); Welker v. Welker, 24 Wis.2d 570, 129 N.W.2d 134 (1964); Smith v. Smith, 90 Ariz. 190, 367 P.2d 230 (1961); Frantzen v. Frantzen, 349 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); Bond v. Bond, 144 W.Va. 478, 109 S.E.2d 16 (1959); Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, 309 P.2d 705 (1957); Salvaggio v. Ba......
-
Waite v. Waite
...much less favor one religion over another. See, e.g., Haymond v. Haymond, 74 Tex. 414, 12 S.W. 90 (1889); see also Frantzen v. Frantzen, 349 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1961, no writ) ("[O]ne's religious beliefs, teachings and practices are not grounds for depriving a parent o......
-
Meredith v. Meredith
...reversal of the trial court's decree and a new trial. See Smith v. Smith, 90 Ariz. 190, 367 P.2d 230 (Ariz.1961); Frantzen v. Frantzen, 349 S.W.2d 765 (Tex.Civ.App.1961); Reynolds v. Rayborn, 116 S.W.2d 836 (TexCiv.App.1938); Levitsky v. Levitsky, 231 Md. 388, 190 A.2d 621 (1963); Stone v. ......
-
Clift v. Clift
...Quiner v. Quiner, Cal.App., 59 Cal.Rptr. 503 (1967); Welker v. Welker, 24 Wis.2d 570, 129 N.W.2d 134 (1964); Frantzen v. Frantzen, Tex.Civ.App., 349 S.W.2d 765 (1961); Salvaggio v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App., 248 S.W.2d 244 (1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 879, 73 S.Ct. 176, 97 L.Ed. 681 (1952); J......