Gahagan v. Williams, 19914
| Citation | 210 S.E.2d 230,263 S.C. 279 |
| Decision Date | 27 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19914,19914 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jerene G. Williams GAHAGAN, Appellant, v. Curtis C. WILLIAMS, Respondent. |
Baker & Etheridge, Darlington, for appellant.
Saleeby, Saleeby & Cox, P.A., Hartsville, for respondent.
In 1968 the Civil and Criminal Court of Darlington County granted custody of the daughter of the mother-plaintiff and the father-defendant to the plaintiff. That court in July, 1973, after a hearing, changed the custody from the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff has appealed.
The plaintiff and the defendant were married in 1966. In 1968, after a brief and obviously uncontested proceeding, the plaintiff was granted a divorce on the ground of physical cruelty. In the divorce decree the plaintiff was granted permanent custody of the child, now seven years old. No evidence or finding relative to the best interest of the child was included in the record.
In 1973, at the instigation of the plaintiff's own mother, grandmother and aunt, the defendant brought a petition to change custody from the plaintiff to him on the ground that 'the mother has become an unfit person to have custody of this child.' The court issued a temporary order granting the change. Thereafter, on July 20, 1973, a full hearing was held, at which hearing the mother, grandmother, and the aunt of the plaintiff testified against the plaintiff and in favor of the change of custody to the defendant.
After the hearing the trial judge granted the petition and changed permanent custody from the plaintiff to the defendant in a short order dated July 26, 1973.
On October 12, 1973, the plaintiff petitioned the court to change the custody from the defendant back to the plaintiff on the ground that there had been a substantial change of circumstances since July. Another hearing was held in which the mother, grandmother, and aunt reversed their testimony and testified in favor of permanent custody for the plaintiff.
Thereafter, on November 14, the trial judge dismissed the petition of the plaintiff and continued permanent custody with the defendant.
On January 7, 1974, the plaintiff again petitioned the court to reversed its order of July 26, 1973, and grand custody of the child to her on the ground that there had been a substantial change of circumstances. The petition was denied.
Neither the order of 1968 granting custody to the plaintiff, nor the three permanent orders granting, and/or confirming, custody of the child to the defendant spelled out the findings of the court relative to just what the conditions were at either the home of the plaintiff or the home of the defendant.
The lower court has completely disregarded § 10--1510, Code of Laws of South Carolina (1962), which reads in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cyr v. Cyr
...385 N.E.2d 894 (1979); Jones v. Jones, 620 P.2d 850 (Mont.1980); DeForest v. DeForest, 228 N.W.2d 919 (N.D.1975); Gahagan v. Williams, 263 S.C. 279, 210 S.E.2d 230 (1974); Haugen v. Haugen, 82 Wis.2d 411, 262 N.W.2d 769 In addition to facilitating appellate review, findings of fact and conc......