Hall v. Triche, 399
| Decision Date | 04 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 399,399 |
| Citation | 266 A.2d 20,258 Md. 385 |
| Parties | Martha DeGroat HALL v. Junius Adam TRICHE, Jr. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Charles D. Sanger, Jr., Silver Spring, for appellant.
Charles H. Mayer, Washington, D. C. (J. Ambrose Kiley, Silver Spring, on the brief) for appellee.
Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.
This is an action for custody of two minor children brought by the mother, the appellant, against the father, the appellee. The chancellor (Moore, J.) awarded custody to the father. We shall affirm that action.
Separation of the parties was followed by a Nevada divorce procured by the mother. Both parties have remarried. The agreement entered into at the time of the separation left the children with the father until the end of that school year 'because both parties desire(d) not to disrupt the (then) school year'. The agreement provided that in the event the parties could not thereafter agree as to the custody either party '(might) apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the permanent custody of the * * * two children'. The chancellor in a careful and well-reasoned opinion awarded custody to the father.
The matter must be considered under Maryland Rule 886 a and our repeated references to the effect that the ultimate test in child custody cases is the best interest and welfare of the children, Goldschmiedt v. Goldschmiedt, 258 Md. 22, 265 A.2d 264 (1970); Krebs v. Krebs, 255 Md. 264, 266, 257 A.2d 428 (1969); Fanning v. Warfield, 252 Md. 18, 248 A.2d 890 (1969), and cases cited in each.
No useful purpose would be served in reviewing in this opinion the evidence before the chancellor. Suffice it to say that after careful consideration of the entire record we are not persuaded that he erred.
Decree affirmed, appellee to pay the costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Hoffman
...interest standard controls when the dispute over custody of a child is between his biological father and mother. See Hall v. Triche, 258 Md. 385, 386, 266 A.2d 20 (1970); Goldschmiedt v. Goldschmiedt, 258 Md. 22, 25, 265 A.2d 264 (1970); Krebs v. Krebs, 255 Md. 264, 266, 257 A.2d 428 (1969)......
-
Davis v. Davis
...of Rule 886 (or that standard without citation to the rule) in our review of child custody awards. See e. g., Hall v. Triche, 258 Md. 385, 386, 266 A.2d 20 (1970) (per curiam); Spencer v. Spencer, 258 Md. 281, 284, 265 A.2d 755, 756 (1970) (per curiam); Goldschmiedt v. Goldschmiedt, 258 Md.......
-
Kirstukas v. Kirstukas, 316
...that the best interests and welfare of the child should be primarily considered in making an award of custody.' See also Hall v. Triche, 258 Md. 385, 386, 266 A.2d 20; Goldschmiedt v. Goldschmiedt, 258 Md. 22, 25, 265 A.2d 264; Krebs v. Krebs, 255 Md. 264, 266, 257 A.2d 428; Fanning v. Warf......
-
Mullinix v. Mullinix, 614
...Neuwiller v. Neuwiller, 257 Md. 285, 262 A.2d 736 (1970); Goldschmiedt v. Goldschmiedt, 258 Md. 22, 265 A.2d 264 (1970); Hall v. Triche, 258 Md. 385, 266 A.2d 20 (1970).2 A substantial change in the custody law has been made by the legislature, Chap. 708, Acts of 1971, adding § 66(g) to Art......