Gustin v. Gustin
| Decision Date | 05 July 1911 |
| Parties | GUSTIN v. GUSTIN. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clackamas County; J.U. Campbell, Judge.
Action by Maude Gustin against Harley J. Gustin. From an order granting custody of a minor child, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.
This is a supplemental proceeding in a suit wherein plaintiff was divorced from defendant. The custody of the child, Vivian Ethel Gustin, was given to defendant's stepmother, Mrs. M. (N.) L. Gustin, until the further order of the court.
In this proceeding Mrs. N.L. Gustin asks to have the decree modified to give her the custody of the child permanently, that she may adopt it, and plaintiff appears by motion and also asks the court for an order giving her the custody of the child. The motions were heard together, and an order made, giving the care and control of the child to Mrs. N.L. Gustin, from which order plaintiff appeals.
L.W. Humphreys (J.J. Fitzgerald, on the brief), for appellant.
Thomas F. Ryan, for Mrs. N.L. Gustin.
EAKIN, C.J. (after stating the facts as above).
Upon the authority of Barnes v. Long, 54 Or. 548, 104 P. 296, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 172, this case must be reversed, and the custody of the child awarded to plaintiff. The defendant in the divorce suit, although present and a witness at the hearing on these motions, made no claim to the child. The controversy is between plaintiff and Mrs. N.L. Gustin.
There is no contention that plaintiff is an unfit person to have the custody of the child. Mrs. N.L. Gustin claims to be better able, financially, to care for her. The facts bring this case within the principle announced in Barnes v. Long, supra. As said in Ex parte Clarke, 82 Neb. 626, 631, 118 N.W. 472, 474, annotated in 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 171, the courts will not deprive a parent of the custody of a child merely because, on financial or other grounds, a stranger might better provide. "The statute does not make the judges the guardians of all the children in the state, with power to take them from their parents, so long as the latter discharge their duties to the best of their ability, and give them to strangers because such strangers may be better able to provide what is already provided."
The decree is reversed, and one will be entered here awarding the custody of the child to the plaintiff.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adoption of Smith, In re
...the less unsuitable for the child. This choice, moreover, is limited to the parents unless both are manifestly unfit. Gustin v. Gustin, 59 Or. 226, 116 P. 1072 (1911). The best-interests-of-the-child standard has no similar relation to the issues presented in a proceeding to dispense with c......
-
Mahoney v. Linder
...the less unsuitable for the child. This choice, moreover, is limited to the parents unless both are manifestly unfit. Gustin v. Gustin, 59 Or. 226, 116 P. 1072 (1911).' The fact that respondent has not visited nor contributed to the support of his children since July 1970, standing alone, i......
-
Gheen v. Gheen
...(1958); Pick v. Pick, 197 Or. 74, 251 P.2d 472 (1952); Turner v. Hendryx, 86 Or. 590, 167 P. 1019, 169 P. 109 (1917); Gustin v. Gustin, 59 Or. 226, 116 P. 1072 (1911); Barnes v. Long, 54 Or. 548, 104 P. 296, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 172 (1909); Jackson v. Jackson, 8 Or. 402 It follows that the decre......