Gantner v. Gantner
| Decision Date | 25 March 1952 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | GANTNER v. GANTNER. S. F. 18513. |
Young, Rabinowitz & Chouteau and John E. Anderton, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Morris Lowenthal and Juliet Lowenthal, San Francisco, for respondent.
This action is a companion case to Gantner v. Superior Court, Cal.Sup., 242 P.2d 328. The factual and procedural events leading to this proceeding are described in that opinion. After we granted a hearing in the prohibition proceeding, Neilma filed a petition with this court, requesting that it issue an order, pending determination of Vallejo's appeal from the custody modification action, permitting Neilma to take the two minor children to visit her relatives in Australia, conditional upon such undertaking as might be required by the court.
In Gantner v. Superior Court, supra, we issued a peremptory writ of prohibition, on the ground that the appeal from the custody modification action deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to enter an order permitting Neilma to take the children out of this state.
The first question presented is whether this court has jurisdiction to enter the requested order. The effect of an appeal is to remove the subject matter of the appeal from the jurisdiction of the trial court. Code Civ.Proc. § 946; Lerner v. Superior Court, Cal.Sup., 242 P.2d 321; Vosburg v. Vosburg, 137 Cal. 493, 496, 70 P. 473. At all times, however, the welfare of the child must be protected by court action. Civ.Code, § 138. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this court clearly has the power in custody matters 'to protect the subject-matter of the order or judgment appealed from during the pendency of such appeal.' In re Browning, 108 Cal.App. 503, 508, 291 P. 650, 651; see Kjellander v. Kjellander, 90 Kan. 112, 132 P. 1170, 45 L.R.A.,N.S., 943; Gotthelf v. Fickett, 37 Ariz. 322, 294 P. 837; Casebolt v. Casebolt, 170 Ky. 88, 185 S.W. 510; cases collected in Pike v. Pike, 24 Wash.2d 735, 167 P.2d 401, 163 A.L.R. 1319. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and to enter the requested order.
The determinative question, therefore, is whether the requested order should be made. In support of her motion, Neilma has pointed out that circumstances might arise where the welfare of a child would require our action during the pendency of an appeal. For example, it might be necessary for a mother to remove her child from the state for an operation necessary to save the life of the child that could be performed only in another state or country.
Such extraordinary circumstances are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, S121400.
...an order in a criminal case removes the subject matter of that order from the jurisdiction of the trial court'"]; Gantner v. Gantner (1952) 38 Cal.2d 691, 692, 242 P.2d 329 ["The effect of an appeal is to remove the subject matter of the appeal from the jurisdiction of the trial court"]; Le......
-
Lerner v. Superior Court In and For San Mateo County
...protection of the child during the appeal arise, application may be made to the appellate court for appropriate relief. See Gantner v. Gantner, Cal.Sup., 242 P.2d 329. Clarence invokes decisions to the effect that pending appeal a trial court has jurisdiction to require a father to make pay......
-
Milne v. Goldstein
...custodial orders. Ward v. Ward, 150 Cal.App.2d 438, 309 P.2d 965; Lerner v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 676, 242 P.2d 321; Gantner v. Gantner, 38 Cal.2d 691, 242 P.2d 329. The Supreme Court, in Lerner v. Superior Court, supra, said in this connection: 'Although it may be assumed that the Cali......
-
Smith v. Smith
...mother. Lerner v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 676, 242 P.2d 321; Gantner v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 688, 242 P.2d 328; Gantner v. Gantner, 38 Cal.2d 691, 242 P.2d 329; In re Barr, 39 Cal.2d 25, 243 P.2d After the notice of appeal was filed, the lower court, after proper notice, made its ord......