Kirkwood v. Kirkwood
Decision Date | 01 August 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 8888,8888 |
Citation | 83 Idaho 444,363 P.2d 1016,95 A.L.R.2d 112 |
Parties | , 95 A.L.R.2d 112 May T. KIRKWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward R. KIRKWOOD, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Peter G. Leriget, Moscow, for appellant.
Felton & Bielenberg, Moscow, for respondent.
The parties were divorced by decree dated September 6, 1957. Plaintiff (appellant) was awarded custody of two minor children, John and Aleta Kirkwood, aged 12 and 9 at the time of divorce. Defendant (respondent) was given the right to visit the children 'at any and all reasonable times'; was required to pay to plaintiff $200 per month for the support of the children, and to pay plaintiff's attorney's fee and costs.
In December, 1957, defendant procured an order directing plaintiff to show cause why the decree should not be modified by transferring the custody of the children to the defendant, because of plaintiff's violation of the provision giving defendant the right of visitation. After hearing, the court, on September 19, 1958, made its order modifying the decree and requiring defendant to pay plaintiff's attorney's fee. Custody was left with plaintiff. The visitation right of defendant was modified as follows
November 21, 1958, defendant again procured an order from the court directing plaintiff to show cause, why the decree as modified should not be again modified by transferring the custody of the children to the defendant and eliminating the support allowance. The petition charged plaintiff with contemptuous disobedience of the decree, and of the order of September 19, 1958.
Plaintiff, appearing by her third counsel, filed answer, and sought $500 temporary attorney's fee and $100 suit money. In resistance to the application for attorney's fee and suit money, defendant made a showing that he was earning approximately $450 per month and was paying $200 a month to plaintiff for the support of the children; that he had paid all of the attorney's fees and costs as ordered by the court; that he was without funds to pay plaintiff's counsel fees; and that by her answer plaintiff admitted that she had violated the decree and order by refusing to permit defendant to visit the children. After hearing, by order dated February 20, 1959, the application for counsel fees and suit money was denied. The order recites:
The judge of the district in which the cause was pending thereafter disqualified himself and transferred the cause to the late Honorable Albert J. Graf, judge of the first district, for hearing on the pending order to show cause. After hearing, Judge Graf rendered an 'Opinion' December 9, 1959. Thereafter Judge Graf died December 21, 1959, and his successor assumed jurisdiction.
In his opinion Judge Graf found as follows:
'As to question number one, this Court finds from the evidence introduced in this matter that the plaintiff, May T. Kirkwood, is in contempt of this court's orders. By her own testimony she admits of three refusals for the defendant to have the children and her excuses offered for such refusals are simply this, that his demands to have the children did not conform with the court's order. She even refused to accept her attorney's advice in this matter. She refused to consider that his times and days off had been changed since the court decree had been entered. Even when he asked to have the children on Saturdays (a day provided for by the decree) she refused.
She admits upon cross examination that because of his remarriage and the fact she therefore considers him to be living in adultery is partially a reason for not allowing the children to visit in his home. This course or pattern of denying his right of visitation is a course which she has pursued since his remarriage and which has brought her at a prior time before this Court on a contempt proceedings.'
On one of the two Saturdays on which plaintiff admitted that defendant had requested a visit with the children, plaintiff's only explanation of her refusal was, 'I simply said 'no' and that was the end of the matter.' The trial judge interviewed the children privately in chambers and further found:
After hearing, a motion by plaintiff to vacate the 'Opinion' filed by Judge Graf was denied, and on February 15, 1960, the successor judge made an order in conformity with the opinion of Judge Graf, as follows:
'It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that plaintiff, May T. Kirkwood, shall retain the care, custody and control of the minor children of the parties, to-wit: Aleta Kirkwood and John Kirkwood; however the defendant be, and he hereby is Ordered to have rights of visitation as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olsen v. Olsen
...children since, although a mother may benefit indirectly from child support, she is not the real party in interest. Kirkwood v. Kirkwood, 83 Idaho 444, 363 P.2d 1016 (1961); Alber v. Alber, 93 Idaho 755, 758, 472 P.2d 321 (1970). I continue to believe that alimony and child support have dis......
-
Hawkins v. Hawkins
...and to make and enforce such regulations, as may become necessary to secure their proper observance. See, Kirkwood vs. Kirkwood, 83 Idaho 844 (444), 363 P.2d 1016 (1961); Dawson v. Dawson, 90 Idaho 234, 409 P.2d 434 (1965); I.R.C.P., Rule The district court, on its review, held the trial co......
-
Biggers v. Biggers
...is required, on proper application, to define "reasonable visitation" in such detail as may be necessary. Kirkwood v. Kirkwood, 83 Idaho 444, 450, 363 P.2d 1016, 1022 (1961); see Tobler v. Tobler, 78 Idaho 218, 299 P.2d 490 (1956); Peterson v. Peterson, 77 Idaho 89, 288 P.2d 645 The trial c......
-
Krause v. Krause, 58
...versa, 95 A.L.R.2d 118; 2 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (2d ed., 1961 rev.), pp. 377, 378, 379, sec. 15.67.4 See: Kirkwood v. Kirkwood (1961), 83 Idaho 444, 363 P.2d 1016; Lawrence v. Lawrence (1956), 85 R.I. 13, 125 A.2d 218.5 See: Hardy v. Hardy (Fla.App., 1960), 118 So.2d 106, 110; Level......