Hale v. Hale
| Decision Date | 05 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 546 |
| Citation | 259 Ala. 666,68 So.2d 63 |
| Parties | HALE v. HALE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Roger F. Rice, Birmingham, for appellant.
Marvin H. Galin, Cullman, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree of the equity court modifying a decree of divorce dated June 30, 1952, with respect to the custody and control of minor children of the parties. The children are Julia Ann Hale and Janice Hale. They are eight years old and four years old respectively. The decree of June 30, 1952, granted a divorce to Freida Hale from Hershall Hale. In this decree the custody and control of the minor children was awarded to the father Hershall Hale with the right of visitation to the mother. The decree further provided that the mother shall have the right to have the children visit with her each alternating week-end from noon Saturday to 6:00 p. m. Sunday.
After the witnesses testified orally before the court, the court entered a decree modifying the decree of June 30, 1952, so as to provide that the care, custody and control of the minor children was awarded to the father Hershall Hale during the school months with the right of visitation to the mother, while the care, custody and control of the minor children was awarded to the mother during school vacation months with the right of visitation to the father.
Each case of the kind now under consideration must rest upon its own facts and circumstances with, of course, the principle always in mind that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. James v. James, 242 Ala. 140, 5 So.2d 616; Hammac v. Hammac, 246 Ala. 111, 19 So.2d 392. And of course the burden is on the petitioner to show a change of conditions which would justify a change of the original decree. Wheeler v. Kelly, 255 Ala. 614, 52 So.2d 700; White v. White, 247 Ala. 405, 24 So.2d 763.
No good purpose can be served here by setting out the evidence in detail. It is sufficient to say that we have studied the evidence with great care as it is always our desire to do our best for the children that come before us in proceedings of this kind. While there are conflicts in the evidence, in brief, it may be said that although the original decree of divorce was granted to the wife, the care, custody and control of the minor children was given to the father. Since that time he has cared for them in the home of his parents in Cullman County, Alabama. This home is a home equal to the average of such homes and is situated several miles out in the country from Cullman. The father is a farmer and is engaged with his father in farming the land on which the home is situated. As a result the children have had sufficient food and clothing and there appears to be no doubt of their affection for the father and his affection for them. To this may be added the affection of the children for the grandparents and their affection for their grandchildren. The house is perhaps overcrowded and does not have modern facilities, but we do not find that the children have suffered from these conditions. The eldest child attends school and to do so walks about one-half mile to reach the school bus in good weather and is carried to the school...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Davis, 3 Div. 688
...consideration is the welfare and best interest of the child.' Hammac v. Hammac, 246 Ala. 111, 113, 19 So.2d 392, 393; Hale v. Hale, 259 Ala. 666, 68 So.2d 63; Gardiner v. Willis, 258 Ala. 647, 64 So.2d 609; Greene v. Greene, 249 Ala. 155, 30 So.2d 444; Worthy v. Worthy, 246 Ala. 52, 18 So.2......
-
James v. Mizell
...ex rel. Grace, 224 Ala. 273, 139 So. 288; Sharp v. Elliotsville Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 280 Ala. 266, 192 So.2d 718; Hale v. Hale, 259 Ala. 666, 68 So.2d 63. There was adequate testimony indicating that the division line had been present much longer that the minimal ten year require......
-
Hood v. Hornsby
...ex rel. Grace, 224 Ala. 273, 139 So. 288; Sharp v. Elliotsville Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 280 Ala. 266, 192 So.2d 718; Hale v. Hale, 259 Ala. 666, 68 So.2d 63. "There was adequate testimony indicating that the division line had been present much longer than the minimal ten year requir......
-
King v. King
...plainly and palpably wrong. Stewart v. Stewart, 261 Ala. 374, 74 So.2d 423; Turner v. Turner, 261 Ala. 129, 73 So.2d 549; Hale v. Hale, 259 Ala. 666, 68 So.2d 63. We cannot say from the record before us that the trial court's finding from the evidence that a common-law marriage existed at t......