Freeland v. Freeland

• Decision Date: 14 August 1916
• Docket Number: 12989.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: FREELAND v. FREELAND.

159 P. 698

92 Wash. 482

FREELAND v. FREELAND.

No. 12989.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 14, 1916

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Bruce Blake Judge.

Action for divorce by Fred B. Freeland against Mrytle B. Freeland. Decree having been entered for plaintiff, and awarding the custody of a minor child, plaintiff petitions to modify the decree as to such custody, and defendant files a cross-petition. From an order dismissing the petition plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Losey &amp Newton, of Spokane, for appellant.

Charles P. Lund, of Spokane, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

In an action for divorce brought by Fred B. Freeland against Myrtle B. Freeland a decree was entered in favor of plaintiff on August 4, 1914, and the custody of their minor child was awarded to each parent alternately for periods of six months the father being given the custody for the first six months. On January 7, 1915, the plaintiff filed a petition for a modification of the decree as to the custody of the child on the ground that the defendant, by reason of misconduct occurring subsequent to the decree, was not a suitable person to have the custody of the child. The defendant filed an answer and cross-petition, asking the exclusive custody of the child. These petitions were heard before the judge who had granted the divorce and decreed the divided custody of the child. At the conclusion of the hearing the judge found that there had been no change in the condition of the parties from that which existed at the time of the entry of the decree in the divorce action, and that the defendant was a fit and proper person to have the care and custody of the child in accordance with the terms and conditions of such decree. An order was thereupon entered, dismissing the petitions of each party, and directing that the original decree remain in full force and effect. The plaintiff appeals.

The appeal presents but one question, namely, Does it appear from the evidence introduced at the hearing that the trial court was guilty of an abuse of discretion in refusing to modify its original decree touching the custody of the child. It must be borne in mind that the petitions were heard by the judge who had tried and determined the divorce action; that he was conversant with the facts developed in the divorce proceedings, and that he had the witnesses before him in the present action, and was in a better position to pass...