Gayman v. Gayman, 29074.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 29074.,29074. |
| Parties | Carolyn GAYMAN, Respondent, v. Dale GAYMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Dale Gayman, pro se.
Edward J. Murphy, Butler, for respondent.
Before TURNAGE, P. J., and PRITCHARD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.
The father of a ten year old male child has appealed from a custody modification order entered in the Circuit Court of Bates County at the behest of the mother. The modification order, same being the second modification of the original custody order, limits the number and length of visitations by the father and restricts them to a neutral location. Suffice it to say, the modification order substantially reduces the father's visitation privileges as compared to his rights of visitation under both the original and previously modified custody order.
As disclosed by the evidence, the father is a man of stout beliefs and possesses an unyielding commitment to their practice and advancement. The record is rife with evidence from which the trial court could reasonably find that the father espoused and advanced his beliefs in the presence of his ten year old son on frequent occasions, while exercising his visitation privileges, and that doing so endangered the child's physical health and impaired his emotional stability.
Section 452.400, RSMo Supp.1973, provides, in part, as follows: It leaves no room for doubt that the "best interests" of the child is the pole-star to guide on when charting restrictions to parental visitation rights. The appeasement of unfulfilled parental desires or of claimed parental priorities has no bearing on the matter.
Deference should be given to the trial court's assessment of what "best" serves the interests of the child in matters pertaining to visitation rights, and once it has spoken its decision with respect thereto should be affirmed on appeal unless it lacks substantial evidence to support it, or is against the weight of the evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976); R____ G____ T____ v. Y____ G____ T____, 543 S.W.2d 330, 331-32 (Mo.App.1976); and in Re Marriage of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Amos, In re, 17849
...banc 1976); Flaton v. Flaton, 777 S.W.2d 948, 951 (Mo.App.1989); Keith v. Keith, 708 S.W.2d 350, 352 (Mo.App.1986); Gayman v. Gayman, 559 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Mo.App.1977). The trial court's judgment will be affirmed unless it is not supported by substantial evidence or is against the weight of......
-
Winters v. Winters
...therefor in the best interests of a child, certainly it may do likewise in the matter of visitation rights. See Gayman v. Gayman, 559 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Mo.App.1977), quoting paragraph 2 of § 452.400, and it was said, "It leaves no room for doubt that the 'best interests' of the child is the ......
-
James v. James, No. 18304
...to what is required in order to modify or define reasonable visitation rights granted to a noncustodial parent. In Gayman v. Gayman, 559 S.W.2d 617 (Mo.App.1977), the western district, prior to its opinion in Pulliam, quoted from § 452.400.2, RSMo Supp.1973, an earlier revision of RSMo Supp......
-
L. L. T. v. P. A. T., WD
...would endanger the physical health and impair the emotional development of the child in her best interests. See Gayman v. Gayman, 559 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Mo.App.1977), holding that deference should be given to the trial court's assessment of what serves the best interest of the child in matter......