Gantner v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco
| Decision Date | 25 March 1952 |
| Citation | 38 Cal.2d 688,242 P.2d 328 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | . S. F. 18512. Supreme Court of California, in Bank |
Morris Lowenthal and Juliet Lowenthal, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Young, Rabinowitz & Chouteau and John E. Anderton, San Francisco, for real party in interest and respondent.
This action involves problems similar to those discussed in Lerner v. Superior Court, Cal.Sup., 242 P.2d 321.
In 1941 Vallejo Gantner, petitioner in this application for a writ of prohibition, and Neilma Gantner, real party in interest, were married in Australia. Thereafter they resided in this state where their two children were born. Following marital difficulties Neilma filed suit for divorce in San Francisco, and Vallejo cross-complained for divorce. Before the action came to trial, the court entered an order allowing Neilma to have custody of the children pending trial but restraining her from taking the children more than fifty miles from San Francisco without the written consent of Vallejo or an order of the court. On August 9, 1949, the trial court entered an interlocutory decree granting Neilma a divorce and granting joint legal custody to the parents. Neilma was granted physical custody and Vallejo rights of visitation. The decree vacated the fifty mile order but provided that neither parent should remove the children from California without approval of the court. The trial court denied Neilma's request that she be allowed to remove the children to Australia to reside there permanently with Neilma and her family, stating in a memorandum opinion: The final decree, entered August 15, 1950, contained the same provisions as the interlocutory decree. No appeal was taken from either decree.
On March 1, 1951, Neilma served notice of a motion seeking an order from the trial court permitting her to take the children to Australia for a vacation trip during the children's summer recess from school. Court permission was necessary because the final divorce decree restrained both parents from taking the children from the state. Vallejo filed affidavits vigorously opposing this motion on the ground that once the children reached Australia they would not be returned by Neilma and would be beyond the process of California courts. In addition to his opposition to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lerner v. Superior Court In and For San Mateo County
... ... [38 Cal.2d 679] Marvin E. Lewis, Goldstein, Lewis & Barceloux, San Francisco, for petitioner ... Cosgriff, Carr, McClellan & Ingersoll, Burlingame, and Frank ... Kington, Redwood City, for real party in interest and respondent ... TRAYNOR, Justice ... 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 ... ...
-
Milne v. Goldstein
...at pages 681-683, 242 P.2d at page 324. Immediately following Lerner, in the same volume, come the two cases of Gantner v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 688, 242 P.2d 328 and Gantner v. Gantner, supra, 38 Cal.2d 691, 242 P.2d 329, involving the right of a wife to take the children to Australia ......
-
Smith v. Smith
...legal custody of the two children remained in the 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, ......
-
Gantner v. Gantner
...we issued prohibition to preclude the trial court's entering the Australian order during the pendency of the appeal. Gantner v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 688, 242 P.2d 328. We also denied Neilma's application to this court for a similar order. Gantner v. Gantner, 38 Cal.2d 691, 242 P.2d The......