Holloway v. Holloway
| Decision Date | 20 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 55943,55943 |
| Citation | 10 Ill.App.3d 662,294 N.E.2d 759 |
| Parties | Gudrun HOLLOWAY, Appellant, v. David HOLLOWAY, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gomberg, Missner & Schaps, Chicago, for appellant; Sidney D. Missner, Chicago, of counsel.
Epstein, Wilsey & Kirsh, Chicago, for appellee; Sanford Kirsh, Chicago, of counsel.
Appellant Gudrun Holloway and appellee David Holloway were married in January 1966. Gudrun is a beautician; David is a Chicago police detective. On May 23, 1967 they became the parents of a little girl whom they named Tammy Mona. March 12, 1968, Gudrun and David were divorced. By an agreement between them, Gudrun was to have the custody of Tammy and David was to pay for support of the child, with rights of visitation.
After the divorce, Gudrun lived in an apartment in Chicago and worked until 9:00 P.M. four days a week, Wednesday through Saturday. She obtained a babysitter for Tammy. Between September 15, 1968 and December of that year, Gudrun could not get a babysitter. Therefore, David's fiancee, the woman he later married, agreed to care for Tammy. This required that the child be taken to 'the other end of town' where Tammy stayed every day except Monday and Tuesday.
In 1969, from June 27 until just before Christmas, Gudrun gave the care and custody of Tammy to David and his mother. David's mother lived in Carbondale, a community in southern Illinois. On August 12, 1969, Gudrun and David signed an agreement which, after referring to Tammy, recited that '* * * unfortunate and irreconcilable difficulties have arisen between mother and minor child, as a result of which they are not now living together * * * (and) if it were not due to this agreement, the mother would be forced to give the child up and put this minor child into a foster home * * *.' The agreement provided that David was to have custody of Tammy, reserving for Gudrun 'reasonable visitation rights.' Tammy remained in David's care either in Chicago or with his mother in Carbondale. Then, early in 1970, after Gudrun moved to another apartment, Tammy was again living with her. On or about April 18, 1970, Gudrun wrote the following handwritten letter to David's mother:
'Dear Mrs. Holloway:
I realize that I should have let you know how Tammy is a long time ago, but there has been to much things I had to do. I have no phone anymore, but hope to get one in my next apartment. I'm moving end of April. So everything is messed up. Tammy has not been happy as she should be ever since she came back. I know I made a mistake taking her back like this, because I really do not spend any time with her at all except on Monday and Tuesday * * *.'
A short time later, Gudrun asked David to take Tammy to his mother's home in Carbondale. He did, and from early in May to the end of June 1970, Tammy remained either with David's mother or with him in Chicago.
On June 30, 1970, in the divorce case, David filed a petition alleging the Gudrun, after receiving custody of Tammy, failed to provide her with a home by keeping her with babysitters, with her paternal grandmother and with him 'for months on end.' David prayed that the divorce decree be modified and that he be given the custody of Tammy, subject to Gudrun's rights of visitation. After hearing evidence that consisted of testimony and documents, the trial court found that Tammy had been subjected to an unstable homelife; that she had been shunted from apartment to apartment, babysitter to babysitter; that she had lived with David and David's mother from time to time; that in signing the agreement with David and in writing the letter to David's mother, Gudrun revealed her inability to care for Tammy; that David had remarried and could provide Tammy with a good home because his present wife knew the child and wanted her. Therefore, the trial court ruled that in Tammy's best interests, she should be in David's care and custody, with 'very liberal visitation rights' in favor of Gudrun. Accordingly, the trial court modified the custody provisions of the divorce decree and changed Tammy's custody from Gudrun to David. Gudrun...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Sieck, In re, s. 78-296 and 78-887
...on a weekly basis over a period of time from the alleged marital domicile was of considerable importance. (See, Holloway v. Holloway (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 662, 294 N.E.2d 759; Kjellesvik v. Shannon (1976), 41 Ill.App.3d 674, 335 N.E.2d 120; and De Franco v. De Franco (1978) 67 Ill. App.3d 7......
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 80-3214
...clearly warrant such change. Bergan v. Bergan (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 740, 1 Ill.Dec. 485, 356 N.E.2d 673; Holloway v. Holloway (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 662, 294 N.E.2d 759. Ronald, pointing to Jarrett, urges that Karla's placing the children in the environment created by her, unalterably led to......
-
People ex rel Irby v. Dubois, 63237
...warranted. (Vysoky v. Vysoky, 85 Ill.App.2d 306, 230 N.E.2d 3; King v. Vancil, 34 Ill.App.3d 831, 341 N.E.2d 65; Holloway v. Holloway, 10 Ill.App.3d 662, 294 N.E.2d 759.) 2 Page 567 However, in a proceeding to initially determine custody, no greater burden is placed on either parent. In the......
-
Jarrett v. Jarrett
...is in itself important. (Bergan v. Bergan (1976), 42 Ill.App.3d 740, 743, 1 Ill.Dec. 485, 356 N.E.2d 673; Holloway v. Holloway (1973), 10 Ill.App.3d 662, 665, 294 N.E.2d 759; Collings v. Collings (1970), 120 Ill.App.2d 125, 128, 256 N.E.2d 108; Jenkins v. Jenkins (1967), 81 Ill.App.2d 67, 7......