Hill v. Hill
| Decision Date | 16 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 14839,14839 |
| Citation | 404 S.W.2d 641 |
| Parties | Harley Arthur HILL, Jr., Appellant, v. Mary Kathleen HILL, Appellee. . Houston |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Skipwith & Muirhead, Ray Carlton Muirhead, Houston, O'Neal & Waitz, Houma, La., for appellant.
William W. McNeal, Jack Harrison, Alvin, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in a divorce case. All points of error relate to the validity or propriety of that part of the decree relating to the visitation rights allowed appellant.
The decree states: '* * * it is accordingly ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the care, custody and control of the minor children be, and they are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, Mary Kathleen Hill, provided that Defendant may have rights of visitation by first obtaining the written consent of Plaintiff, Mary Kathleen Hill.' Appellant contends that the effect of this decree is to make his right of visitation conditional and contingent.
It is the general rule in Texas that the right of a parent to visit with his children placed in the custody of the other parent by the divorce decree, will not be completely denied except where there are extreme grounds to support such a denial. Liddell v. Liddell, Tex.Civ.App.1930, 29 S.W.2d 868; Felker v. Felker, Tex.Civ.App.1948, 216 S.W.2d 669, error ref., n.r.e.
It is equally well settled that reasonable access by a parent to his children is a right given by law and exists where the decree neither denies the right of visitation nor makes provision for same. Cherry v. Cherry, Tex.Civ.App.1964, 384 S.W.2d 912; Hays v. Hays, Tex.Civ.App.1939, 123 S.W.2d 968.
The trial court found as a fact: (1) that the defendant was not a fit person to see and visit the children without strict limitations and safeguards being placed upon said visitation privileges; (2) that in all probability visitation by appellant with the children would cause irreparable harm, both psychologically and physically, to said children unless said visitation was first consented to and approved by Mary Kathleen Hill, prior to such time said visitation might take place; and (3) that it would be contrary to the best welfare and interest of the minor children for appellant to be allowed visitation with said children without having first obtained the prior written consent of appellee. These findings of fact are attacked on the ground that they are contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The finding, numbered (1) above, is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong. Findings numbered (2) and (3) are supported by no evidence.
The trial court concluded as a matter of law that it would be to the best interest and general welfare of the children that appellant be granted the right of visitation with said children 'with the limitation that said visitation privilege shall be conditioned upon his first obtaining the prior written consent' of appellee to each visitation period.
The trial court did not deny appellant visitation rights. He found as a fact that the best interests of the children require that appellant be granted the right to visit under proper limitations and safeguards. His decree, however, conditions the right of visitation upon appellee's prior written consent. No limitations or safeguards are provided. It would appear that the court felt that the necessary limitations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferguson v. DRG/Colony North, Ltd.
...Insurance Co. v. Spray, 468 S.W.2d 347 (Tex.1971). A judgment generally should not be conditional, alternative, or contingent. Hill v. Hill, 404 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.Civ.App.1966, no writ). In more recent years, these general rules have usually been construed and applied narrowly, with the resul......
-
In re Harrison
...[14th Dist.] 1988, no writ) (trial court’s order making mother’s visitation contingent on father’s consent was error); Hill v. Hill , 404 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1966, no writ) (order making father’s visitation contingent on mother’s prior written consent denied ......
-
Bellaire Kirkpatrick Joint Venture v. Loots
...in this case. Bellaire Kirkpatrick argues that this judgment is conditional and contingent, and thus may not stand, citing Hill v. Hill, 404 S.W.2d 641, 642 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1966, no We note that Hill dealt with the validity of a divorce decree, in which the trial court improperly con......
-
Hale v. Hale, No. 4-05-00314-CV (TX 1/25/2005)
...houses up from us, rents for a thousand a month." The general rule is that judgments must not be conditional or contingent. Hill v. Hill, 404 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston 1966, no writ). "[A] judgment must be certain and definite. The validity and binding force of a judgment must......