Hampton v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 04 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4700,5--4700 |
| Parties | Sherrye Holmes HAMPTON, Appellant, v. Alton R. HAMPTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
James C. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellant.
Macom, Moorhead & Green, Stuttgart, for appellee.
This appeal is from an order of the Arkansas County Chancery Court modifying a divorce decree as to the visitation rights of the father with the couple's three year old daughter.
Sherrye and Alton Hampton were married on October 21, 1962, when she was sixteen and he was nineteen years of age. They lived together on his father's rice farm near DeWitt for about two years when their child, Monti, was born. Alton was overseas for about two years as a member of the armed forces and while he was away Sherrye and the child lived with her parents who operate a grocery store in Des Arc, Arkansas. Upon Alton's return from overseas, the couple continued to live on his father's farm where Alton worked on the farm for daily wages. They obtained a divorce on December 2, 1966; the custody of the child was awarded to the mother and visitation rights of two Saturdays each month were awarded to the father. After the divorce, Sherrye entered Little Rock University. She kept the child with her part of the time in Little Rock and left it with her mother part of the time in Des Arc. Alton continued to work on his father's farm near DeWitt and attempted to visit the child two Saturdays each month as provided in the decree.
The record indicates that much of the difficulty causing the separation and divorce in the first place had to do with the immature attitude each parent took toward the other in relation to the welfare of their child. The divorce did not soften their attitude toward each other. The child was allergic to organic dusts, particularly from soybeans and rice but this allergy was controlled by medication. The parents were allergic to each other and no attempt was made by either to control this allergy. As a matter of fact this allergy was aggravated to some extent by Sherrye's remarriage. Alton attempted to exercise his visitation rights under the court order as if the order was directed to him and Sherrye flouted the court order as if she had not even heard of it and as if it did not apply to her at all. On several occasions Alton would drive from DeWitt to Little Rock to visit the child and Sherrye would deny him the privilege, usually on the pretext that the child was ill because of allergy or had an appointment with a doctor.
Sherrye's remarriage contributed nothing but complications to the exercise of Alton's rights of visitation and following a contempt citation hearing on March 17, 1967, the chancellor held Sherrye in contempt of court for failure to comply with the visitation orders, but deferred further action for a period of sixty days, during which time Sherrye was given further opportunity to comply with the previous orders pertaining to the visitation rights. Additional hearing was had on October 24, 1967, at which time the chancellor modified the original decree by authorizing Alton to have the child in his home two weekends out of each month. It is from this order that Sherrye has perfected her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Weber
...Ark. 528, 425 S.W.2d 722. We will not reverse them unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Hampton v. Hampton, 245 Ark. 579, 433 S.W.2d 149; Hendrix v. Hendrix, supra; Williams v. Campbell, 254 Ark. 592, 495 S.W.2d 512; Marine Mart v. Pearce, 252 Ark. 601, 480 S.W......
-
Wenderoth v. Freeze
...his findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, and this is actually the rule that is followed. Hampton v. Hampton, 245 Ark. 579, 433 S.W.2d 149. We have endeavored, in the remarks of the last several paragraphs, to show that a hearing before the Planning Commission is m......
- Meyer v. Bradley, 5--4647
-
Briggs v. Capital Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 79-333
...fact. Digby v. Digby, 263 Ark. 813, 567 S.W.2d 290 (1978); Minton v. McGowan, 256 Ark. 726, 510 S.W.2d 272 (1974); Hampton v. Hampton, 245 Ark. 579, 433 S.W.2d 149 (1968). The chancellor's decision was not contrary to the preponderance of the Affirmed. ...