Henson v. Henson
| Decision Date | 27 August 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 3139,3139 |
| Citation | 384 P.2d 721 |
| Parties | Diana HENSON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. James N. HENSON, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Robert A. Burgess (of Winter, Burgess & Forrister), Casper, for appellant.
Harry E. Leimback (of Leimback, Winter & Hand), Casper, for appellee.
Before PARKER, C. J., and HARNSBERGER, GRAY, and McINTYRE, JJ.
By a divorce decree granted in New Mexico, mother, defendant here, was given custody of the minor child of the parties with certain visitation privileges to the child's father who was required to pay the mother $50 per month for the child's support. The mother, having remarried, now makes her home in Wyoming, and the father, plaintiff here, by habeas corpus, procured the child before the District Court of Natrona County for inquiry as to cause of its restraint and denial of the father's right of visitation and custody.
In answering defense, the mother relied upon the New Mexico decree and cross-petitioned for recovery of $450 claimed as unpaid maintenance money for the child, due under that decree, together with an attorney's fee of $250. Following trial, the court modified the New Mexico decree relating to the father's right of visitation, required the father to make up the arrearage of $450 and keep current future payment for support of the child, to post a $500 bond just prior to taking the child on a permitted vacation (the same to be returned to the father upon his returning the child), admonished the father to do nothing to embarrass the mother and her new husband with the child, and admonished the mother to respect the rights of the child's natural father and to preserve the respect of the child for its father.
The mother appeals from the entire Order and judgment, contending the court's finding of a change of circumstances is contrary to and not supported by the evidence, is contrary to law, and that the portion of the decree requiring the mother to carefully respect the rights of the father and preserve the respect of the child for her natural father and if the mother refuses to so do, the child may be taken from her, is so uncertain and indefinite as to be impossible to perform and is contrary to law.
There is sharp conflict in the testimony as to what has occurred when the father sought to exercise his rights of visitation pursuant to the New Mexico decree, and the trial court was privileged to accept either that evidence most favorable in support of the mother's position or that of the father. The court evidently elected to accept the latter. With this we do not interfere as that evidence was substantial. The prime if not the sole judicial objective respecting custody of a minor child and parental privileges of visitation where, by divorce, a child is deprived of a continuous home with both parents, is to serve the best interests of the child. Laughton v. Laughton, 71 Wyo. 506, 512, 259 P.2d 1093, 1095, 43 A.L.R.2d 351. Court decrees in these matters are neither to punish nor to reward one parent or the other for real or supposed derelictions.
Courts, though they be possessed of the reputed wisdom of Solomon, are conscious of their human fallibility, and the law recognizes that man is without that fore-vision which ensures that his judgment of today will, in light of unforeseen new conditions, prove to be adequate or even proper tomorrow. So, aside from the new circumstance presented by the mother's change of residence, the unfortunate disagreements and quarrels of the parties arising from the father's efforts to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goss v. Goss, 88-267
...217, 65 P.2d 243 (1937); Ramsey v. Ramsey, 76 Wyo. 188, 301 P.2d 377 (1956); Butcher v. Butcher, 363 P.2d 923 (Wyo.1961); Henson v. Henson, 384 P.2d 721 (Wyo.1963) (visitation question); Taylor v. Taylor, 388 P.2d 192 (Wyo.1964); Wilson v. Wilson, 473 P.2d 595 A corollary thereto is that co......
-
Leitner v. Lonabaugh
...consideration being given to the welfare and needs of the children. Stirrett v. Stirrett, 35 Wyo. 206, 248 P. 1, 5; Henson v. Henson, Wyo., 384 P.2d 721, 723. Presumably the solemn agreement of the parents and the modification decree were to accomplish that primary purpose. All provisions a......
-
Selvey v. Selvey
...objective * * * is to serve the best interests of the child.'" Gaines v. Doby, 794 P.2d 566, 570 (Wyo. 1990). (quoting Henson v. Henson, 384 P.2d 721, 723 (Wyo. 1963)). We have "always recognized that the trial court exercises a broad discretion in the execution of its revisory powers in ma......
-
Roberts v. Vilos
...v. Mentock, 638 P.2d 156 (Wyo.1981); Wilson v. Wilson, 473 P.2d 595 (Wyo.1970); Taylor v. Taylor, 388 P.2d 192 (Wyo.1964); Henson v. Henson, 384 P.2d 721 (Wyo.1963). It is obvious here that the trial court was aware of, and did consider, the best interests of the children. This is demonstra......