Kurtz v. Christensen
Decision Date | 17 August 1922 |
Docket Number | 3722 |
Citation | 209 P. 340,61 Utah 1 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | KURTZ et ux. v. CHRISTENSEN et ux |
Rehearing denied October 4, 1922.
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County Ephraim Hanson, Judge.
Habeas corpus by John P. Kurtz and wife against Otto W. Christensen and wife. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Ray Van Cott, of Salt Lake City, for appellants.
John F Bowman, of Salt Lake City, for respondents.
The plaintiffs, on February 15, 1921, filed in the district court of Salt Lake county a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to issue against the defendants, requiring them to produce before that court an infant child, alleged to have been wrongfully and unlawfully taken from the custody and control of its natural mother, the plaintiff Dorothy A. Kurtz. A writ issued, and in due time a return was made, whereupon the district court, on May 21, 1921, after hearing the evidence, ordered that the defendants be discharged of the writ, and that the child be remanded to the care and custody of the defendants.
The plaintiffs appeal. As grounds for a reversal they allege that the trial court's findings are not supported by the evidence, that error was committed in the admission of certain documentary evidence, and that the decree and judgment are against law.
The findings of the trial court are especially assailed, and, for the reason that they substantially, if not in detail, set forth the character and relationship of the respective parties and the facts and circumstances out of which this controversy arose, we here set them forth in full.
We have read the somewhat voluminous transcript of the evidence in this case with more than ordinary care, and, after doing so, we conclude that the case was tried upon the theory that the best interest of the child should be controlling, and have no hesitancy in saying that the trial court's findings in that regard, in every instance, are supported by substantial, if not by the overwhelming weight of, evidence. Legal controversies in which the right to the care and custody of a little child are involved seldom fail to engender intense feelings on the part of the participants, more especially where there are foster or adoptive parents on the one side and the natural parents on the other. This case in that regard affords no exception. In these cases the duty of the courts to decide fairly and impartially the paramount question -- the best interests of the child -- is always attended with grave responsibility, and oftentimes is a very difficult matter to determine. After reviewing the record in this case we are satisfied that any extended discussion of the evidence on the part of this court would subserve no good purpose whatsoever. The principles of law controlling are generally understood. The difficulty arises in their application to the facts and circumstances of a given case. Humanity is not the subject of barter and sale. While the courts at times discuss and give some consideration to what is frequently referred to as the equities of the contending parties, nevertheless, in the last analysis, the best interest of the child is always the prime factor in the case, and of necessity overshadows all others.
In this case we are constantly reminded, in the brief and argument of plaintiffs' counsel, that by reason of the fact that the plaintiffs are natural parents the law favors them. It is also contended in plaintiffs' behalf that their social station and their financial ability...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirkland v. Carlon (In re Heater)
...superseded by statute as recognized in Hill v. Nakai (In re Est. of Hannifin ), 2013 UT 46, 311 P.3d 1016 ; Kurtz v. Christensen , 61 Utah 1, 209 P. 340, 342–44 (1922) (referring to biological parents as natural parents); Harrison v. Harker , 44 Utah 541, 142 P. 716, 720–21, 728, 730, 737, ......
-
Kishpaugh v. Kishpaugh
...110 Utah 1, 12-13, 169 P.2d 97, 102 (1946); Wallick v. Vance, 76 Utah 209, 228-29, 289 P. 103, 110 (1930); Kurtz v. Christensen, 61 Utah 1, 10, 209 P. 340, 344 (1922). These cases run the factual gamut from permanent deprivation of custody, e.g., State ex rel. R.L., to a simple change of cu......
-
Cooke v. Cooke
... ... 1916A, 989; ... Hummel v. Parrish , 43 Utah 373, 134 P. 898; ... Dorsey v. Dorsey , 52 Utah 73, 172 P. 722; ... Farmer v. Christensen , 55 Utah 1, 183 P ... 328; Kurtz v. Christensen , 61 Utah 1, 209 ... P. 340; Alley v. Alley , __ Utah, __, 247 P ... 301 (not yet ... ...
-
Walton v. Coffman
... ... Harrison v. Harker , supra, and the decision ... in Jensen v. Earley , supra, agree ... Farmer v. Christensen , 55 Utah 1, 183 P ... 328; Kurtz v. Christensen , 61 Utah 1, 209 ... P. 340; Wallick v. Vance , 76 Utah 209, 289 ... P. 103; Flora v ... ...