Gibbs v. North, 18761
Citation | 211 Ga. 231,84 S.E.2d 833 |
Decision Date | 08 November 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 18761,18761 |
Parties | Laura Frances GIBBS v. John H. NORTH, Jr. |
Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
On April 3, 1954, John H. North, Jr., filed in Catoosa Superior Court, against Mrs. Laura Frances Gibbs, formerly North, a petition seeking to have the defendant adjudged in contempt of court because of alleged disobedience of certain provisions regarding custody of their minor daughter, which were included in a decree of divorce granted to the wife on February 10, 1951, and also seeking injunctive relief in aid of the judgment. The divorce decree allowed each of the parties to remarry and awarded permanent custody of the child to the mother. It provided that the father should be permitted to visit the child at reasonable times. He was to be permitted to take the child into his home or elsewhere every other Sunday until she reached the age of 18 months, the child to be returned to the home of the mother at 6 p. m. on said Sundays. After the child reached 18 months of age, the father was to have custody every other week-end, and for a period of two weeks during the summer of each year beginning in 1952, or for a period of time equal to the father's vacation period, not to exceed three weeks. The decree concluded:
The father alleged substantially the following in the present petition as amended: The mother has married James W. Gibbs, and she and the child reside with him in Fulton County. The mother violated the decree, (1) in refusing to deliver the child to the father when he called for it at the residence of the mother in Atlanta on Saturday, February 20, 1954, and on Saturday, March 20, 1954; (2) in removing the child from Catoosa County to Fulton County for such length of time as to materially affect the provisions of the decree; (3) in regularly failing to deliver the child to a place within the jurisdiction of the court in accordance with the provisions of the decree, to wit, in Catoosa County, every other Saturday morning, where the father could secure the child for the week-end. It was further alleged that, on the week-ends when the father had custody, he returned the child to the home of its maternal grandparents in Catoosa County, which was the home provided in the decred and was the only place to which he could return the child within the jurisdiction of the court.
General and special demurrers were interposed by the mother to the petition as amended. The trial court overruled the general demurrers. Certain grounds of the mother's special demurrers to the petition as amended were overruled and other special grounds were sustained.
Upon the trial of the case, the trial court held that the mother was not in contempt, but entered a judgment which stated that the language, within the jurisdiction of the court, in the original decree meant that the child was to remain in Catoosa County,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perry v. Perry
...of the child is shown. Handley v. Handley, 204 Ga. 57, 48 S.E.2d 827; Madison v. Montgomery, 206 Ga. 199, 56 S.E.2d 292; Gibbs v. North, 211 Ga. 231, 84 S.E.2d 833. But where there has been a material change of circumstances substantially affecting the welfare and best interest of a child w......
-
Goodloe v. Goodloe
...such person's residence. Danziger v. Shoob, 203 Ga. 623, 48 S.E.2d 92; Brinson v. Jenkins, 207 Ga. 218, 60 S.E.2d 440.' Gibbs v. North, 211 Ga. 231(2), 84 S.E.2d 833, 834. It is contended in this case that--since the judgment awarding custody of the children was based upon an agreement betw......
-
Smith v. Smith, 25135
...to the right of custody, unless a change of circumstances affecting the interest and welfare of the children is shown.' Gibbs v. North, 211 Ga. 231(2), 84 S.E.2d 833. The type of change which is required was well expressed in Bowen v. Bowen, 223 Ga. 800(2), 158 S.E.2d 233: 'Evidence shows m......
-
Connell v. Connell, 23736
...and nothing said therein alters this legal status of that judgment. Burton v. Furcron, 207 Ga. 637, 63 S.E.2d 650; Gibbs v. North, 211 Ga. 231, 84 S.E.2d 833.' The statement in King v. King, 202 Ga. 838(2), 44 S.E.2d 791, that '(i)t is thus against the policy of the law to permit removal of......