Grace v. Cummings, 43666
| Decision Date | 15 November 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 43666,43666 |
| Parties | Mrs. Doris GRACE v. Clyde CUMMINGS. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Crisler, Crisler & Bowling, Jackson, Fountain D. Dawson, Greenville, for appellant.
Willard L. McIlwain, Greenville, for appellee.
Mrs. Doris Hearn Cummings filed her original bill against Clyde Cummings on May 28, 1962, for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, based on habitual cruel and inhuman treatment, and custody of the four children, together with support for them. Shortly thereafter, on June 8, 1962, the court, on motion of Mrs. Cummings, voluntarily surrendered the custody of the children to the father. The final decree of the court on July 3, 1962, awarded Mrs. Cummings a divorce, but left the custody of the children with the father.
On September 4, 1964, Mrs. Doris Hearn Cummings, now Mrs. Doris Grace, filed her petition to modify the former decree and change the custody of the children from their father to their mother. After a full hearing on September 18, 1964, the chancellor dismissed the proceedings for the change, and left the custody with the father.
Mrs. Grace, from the decree, appealed.
The evidence, adduced by the parties, consisted largely of criminations and recriminations against each other, those for the mother going largely to the charge that the father was a drinking and doping man and did not properly provide for the care and education of the children. On the contrary, the evidence for the father negatived those charges, saying that they were untrue, and that the mother was not a satisfactory person to have the custody.
It was admitted that the mother and her present husband both worked regularly from the late afternoon until nearly midnight.
The evidence for the father was to the effect that, while he worked regularly in the day time, he was at home with the children at night, and that he returned to the home shortly after the children came from school; that the father and these children lived in the home of his sister and her husband; that it was a seven room house; and that the children were properly bathed each night. This aunt and uncle both testified that they loved the children, would be glad to have them in their home, and they promised that they would do everything they could for the needs and welfare of the children. There was also some proof that the father manifested interest in the religious training of the children through church attendance. The son,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waller v. Waller
...(quoting Anderson v. Watkins, 208 So.2d 573, 575 (Miss.1968)). See also Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748 (Miss.1966); Grace v. Cummings, 253 Miss. 794, 179 So.2d 836 (1965). Any order for joint custody may be modified upon the showing of a material change of circumstances adverse to the intere......
-
Anderson v. Watkins
...develop which warrant a change. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2743 (1956); Miss.Code1942 Ann. § 1263.5 (Supp.1966); Grace v. Cummings, 253 Miss. 794, 179 So.2d 836 (1965); Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748 (Miss.1966). The fact that a mother was not originally given custody of her children in divorce p......
-
Hatten v. Pearson
...develop which warrant a change. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2743 (1956); Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 1263.5 (Supp.1966); Grace v. Cummings, 253 Miss. 794, 179 So.2d 836 (1965); Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748 (Miss.1966). The fact that a mother was not originally given custody of her children in divorce ......
-
Thompson v. Foster, 46026
...develop which warrant a change. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2743 (1956); Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 1263.5 (Supp.1966); Grace v. Cummings, 253 Miss. 794, 179 So.2d 836 (1965); Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748 (Miss.1966). * * The only thing which truly reflects against his character since the former decr......