Keefer v. Keefer

Decision Date06 March 1969
Docket NumberGen. No. 68--122
PartiesDeanna L. KEEFER, a/k/a Deanna L. Demarco, Appellee, v. Edward W. KEEFER, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

David L. Martenson, Rockford, for appellant.

Maynard & Brassfield, Rockford, for appellee.

ABRAHAMSON, Justice.

The defendant prosecutes this appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Winnebago County that denied his motion to 'modify the rights of visitation' of his former wife with their two children.

On November 4, 1963, the plaintiff, Deanna L. Keefer, was granted a divorce from Edward W. Keefer. By the terms of the divorce decree, Edward W. Keefer was given custody of the two minor children of the parties, Edward W. Keefer, Jr. and Gary A. Keefer, and Deanna was granted 'reasonable visitation privileges.' By a subsequent order dated October 17, 1967, the visitation privileges (although described in the order as 'temporary custody') of Deanna Keefer were defined with greater precision, in part as follows:

'1. That the plaintiff, Deanna L. Keefer, have the right to pick up her minor son, gary A. Keefer, from the home of the defendant, Edward W. Keefer, at 4:00 o'clock P.M. on Friday of the first, second and third weeks of each month, and to have the temporary custody of said minor child until 7:00 o'clock P.M. on the following Sunday at which time said minor child is to be returned to the home of the defendant.

3. That the plaintiff, Deanna L. Keefer, shall have the right of visitation with her minor son, Edward W. Keefer, Jr., at the home of the defendant at or about the hour of 4:00 o'clock P.M. on Friday of the first, second and third weeks of each month and at or about the hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M. on Sunday of the first, second and third weeks of each month, or at other places by mutual agreement between herself and her said son.'

The defendant's motion to modify these visitation privileges, filed April 5, 1968, alleged that since the order of October 17, 1967, 'the school grades of both children have turned from excellent to poor, the children have been forced by Deanna L. Keefer to associate with undesirable syndicate hoodlums, and other unfortunate and undesirable results have been obtained.' The motion asked for a full hearing and an order 'completely terminating' the plaintiff's rights of visitation until she 'discontinues her association with parties whose names, addresses and records shall be presented at the time of hearing.' Edward Jr. and Gary were 9 and 7 years old respectively at the time the motion was filed.

Deanna Keefer was called as an adverse witness pursuant to Section 60 of the Civil Practice Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. 1967, c. 110, § 60, by the defendant at the hearing held April 30, 1968. She testified that she resided at two locations, an apartment in Forest Park and in a 7 bedroom home owned by a Sam Samarco in Chicago. Deanna had a separate bedroom in the Chicago home and cared for Samarco's mother until her death in July 1967. Samarco, his sister, brother-in-law and their four children also lived at the home. Deanna's only source of income until her own father died in June, 1967 was from Samarco for the care of his mother. She admitted that the mailbox on her Forest Park apartment had the name DeMarco on it but denied that Samarco ever used the name DeMarco.

Deanna further testified that she visited with her sons regularly after the divorce and that they frequently stayed with her at both residences during her visitation periods. On one occasion Samarco stayed overnight in the apartment with Gary and Deanna but Samarco slept by himself. Deanna said she ate at 'Mr. Don's', a restaurant near her apartment, and knew the owner, Donald Maggio. She occasionally took Gary with her to eat at 'Mr. Don's' and although she knew that Samarco occasionally ate there she did not know how often. She denied any knowledge of Samarco's employment or source of income.

Edward Keefer testified that his children resided with his parents in Rockford until his remarriage in January, 1967, and with him, his second wife...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Coons v. Wilder
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 5, 1981
    ... ... (See Doggett v. Doggett (1977), 51 Ill.App.3d 868, 9 Ill.Dec. 474, 366 N.E.2d 985; Keefer v. Keefer (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 74, 245 N.E.2d 784). Respondent sought to increase his visitation to eight consecutive weeks each summer, but the ... ...
  • Jack A. v. Joan D. (In re P.D.)
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • October 13, 2017
    ...220, 518 N.E.2d 1041 ; In re Marriage of Repond, 349 Ill. App. 3d 910, 919, 285 Ill.Dec. 491, 812 N.E.2d 80 (2004) ; Keefer v. Keefer, 107 Ill. App. 2d 74, 78, 245 N.E.2d 784 (1969). While that relationship is often a marriage, a child's best interests are no less important because his or h......
  • Doggett v. Doggett
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 4, 1977
    ... ... Keefer v. Keefer, 107 Ill.App.2d 74, 245 N.E.2d 784; Boyles v. Boyles, 14 Ill.App.3d 602, 302 N.E.2d 199. The court in Keefer noted that the principle of ... ...
  • Valencia v. Valencia
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 25, 1977
    ... ... (Keefer v. Keefer, 107 Ill.App.2d 74, 78, 245 N.E.2d 784, 786 (2d Dist.1969).) Thus, we have said that '(t)he welfare of the child usually requires that the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT