Hamann v. Morentin, 2-82-185-CV

• Decision Date: 17 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 2-82-185-CV,2-82-185-CV
• Citation: 660 S.W.2d 645
• Parties: Russell Allen HAMANN, Appellant, v. Sally Hamann MORENTIN, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 645

660 S.W.2d 645

Russell Allen HAMANN, Appellant, v. Sally Hamann MORENTIN, Appellee.

No. 2-82-185-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas Fort Worth.

Nov. 17, 1983.

Larry Finstrom, Dallas, for appellant.

Sally Hamann Morentin, pro se.

Before FENDER, C.J., and JORDAN and BURDOCK, JJ.

OPINION

BURDOCK, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Appellant filed suit against appellee for the custody of their two minor children. The trial court entered an order granting managing conservatorship of one child to appellant, the father, and one child to appellee, the mother.

Appellant asserts as his sole point of error that the trial court abused its discretion in splitting conservatorship or custody of the children because it was not in the best interests of the children and there was no clear and compelling reason to do so. We disagree.

We affirm.

The paramount concern in a custody action is the welfare and best interest of the child. This is the primary standard upon which the trial court shall determine questions of managing conservatorship, possession, support of, and access to the child. In determining this, the trial court shall consider all the circumstances of the parents. TEX.FAM.CODE ANN. sec. 14.07 (Vernon Supp.1982-1983); Griffith v. Griffith, 462 S.W.2d 328 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1970, no writ). It is settled that split managing conservatorships are not favored and should not be awarded except in extreme cases where the situations of the parties require such actions. Beasley v. Beasley, 304 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1957, writ ref'd n.r.e.); O. v. P., 560 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1977, no writ). The courts are given wide discretion in determining the custody of minor children and the court's determination as trier of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless it can be shown that the court abused its discretion. Matter of Marriage of Stockett, 570 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1978, no writ). A review of the procedural history and facts of this case are necessary in our determination of the circumstances supporting the trial judge's ruling.

The appellant/father and appellee/mother were divorced on April 28, 1976 in Burbank, California. The appellee was named Managing Conservator of the children, aged five and one years. The children were snatched by the Appellant and his live-in girlfriend on September 2, 1977 and taken to Nevada for a two-month period. The children were then taken to Arlington, Texas, where they remained secreted from their mother for a period of three and one-half years. Appellee, who had expended thousands of dollars in her futile effort to locate her children, was served with a notice of motion to modify the parent-child relationship, filed by the appellant in Tarrant County on March 3, 1981. After a temporary hearing on March 10, 1981, the court appointed the father Temporary Managing Conservator. However, on April 21, 1981, the court altered its decision and ordered that the Tarrant County Juvenile Department be named Temporary Managing Conservator of the subject children, and returned them to the appellee in California.

The testimony of the appellee reveals that during the time the children were in her care and custody, from April to August 1981, they demonstrated behavior which indicated they were having difficulty adjusting to the turmoil. One child began to consistently wet the bed the morning after he received calls from his father in Texas. The judge further ordered a social study to be done in Tarrant County. A review of the study reveals that the children were confused. The older child was upset about the prospect of leaving the appellant, his father, to go live with ...