Goins v. Edens

• Decision Date: 20 September 1965
• Docket Number: No. 5-3613,5-3613
• Citation: Goins v. Edens, 394 S.W.2d 124, 239 Ark. 718 (Ark. 1965)
• Parties: Doyce Olene GOINS, Appellant, v. Vera Nelle EDENS, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 124

394 S.W.2d 124

239 Ark. 718

Doyce Olene GOINS, Appellant, v.Vera Nelle EDENS, Appellee.

No. 5-3613.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Sept. 20, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 25, 1965.

Crumpler & O'Connor, Richard H. Mays, El Dorado, for appellant.

Brown, Compton & Prewett, El Dorado, for appellee.

ROBINSON, Justice.

In the year 1952, the appellant herein, who is now Doyce Olene Goins, married Murrell Edens.Three children were born of the marriage; a daughter, Deborah, 11; a son, Donald Glenn, 10, whose custody is involved in this litigation; and a daughter, Linda Karen, 9.

In September, 1958, appellant was granted a divorce from Edens.By agreement of the parties, appellant was awarded custody of the two girls, and Edens was awarded custody of the boy.Later, Edens married the appellee herein, Vera Nelle Edens; at a still later date, appellant married Bill C. Goins.

In June, 1964, Edens died, and appellant, Doyce Goins, natural mother or Donald Glenn, immediately attempted to get custody of the little boy, but Mrs. Edens, the stepmother would not agree that the natural mother should have his custody.Hence, Mrs. Goins filed this action alleging the death of the natural father, Murrell Edens, and asked that she be awarded custody of her son.Vera Nelle Edens, stepmother of Donald Glenn, resisted the natural mother's petition and asked that she(Mrs. Edens) be awarded custody of the child.The child's paternal grandparts intervened and also asked that the stepmother be awarded custody.From an order awarding the stepmother, Vera Nelle Edens, custody of the little boy, the natural mother, Doyce Olene Goins, has appealed.

From the evidence it appears, without a doubt, that either party, Mrs. Goins, the natural mother, or Mrs. Edens, the stepmother, is a suitable person to have custody of the child.Both are good women, fully capable from every standpoint of rearing the little boy in a proper manner.In a situation of his kind, the law is firmly established that the natural mother has preferential rights to custody of the child.

Hancock v. Hancock, 198 Ark. 652, 130 S.W.2d 1, was a similar situation; a contest between the natural mother and stepmother for the custody of a 13 year old boy.As in the case at bar, the trial court awarded custody to the stepmother.On appeal the decree was reversed.Judge Frank Smith, speaking for the court, said:

'The recent case of Holmes v. Coleman, 195 Ark. 196, 111 S.W.2d 474, 476, announces the rule which we think is applicable here.We there said: 'Courts are very reluctant to take from the natural parents the custody of their child, and will not do so unless the parents have manifested such indifference to its welfare as indicates a lack of intention to discharge the duties imposed by the laws of nature and of the State to their offspring suitable to their station in life. * * *''

In other casesthis court has said:

'There is no doubt but that both the grandmother and mother are attached to the child, and it has affection for them.That is not unusual.'The law recognizes the preferential rights of parents to their children over relatives and strangers, and, where not detrimental to the welfare of the children, they are paramount, and will be respected, unless special circumstances demand that such rights be ignored.'Johnston v. Lowry, 181 Ark. 284, 25 S.W.2d 436, 437;Loewe v. Shook, 171 Ark. 475, 284 S.W. 726;Herbert v. Herbert, 176 Ark. 858, 4 S.W.2d 513.'Pfifer v. Pfifer, 198 Ark. 567, 129 S.W.2d 939.

'Where not detrimental to the welfare of children, the law recognizes the preferential rights of parents to them over relatives and strangers.Paramount rights of...