LaBelle v. LaBelle, 43429

• Decision Date: 04 May 1973
• Docket Number: No. 43429,43429
• Citation: 207 N.W.2d 291,296 Minn. 173
• Parties: Gerald J. LaBELLE, Respondent, v. Margaret Ann LaBELLE, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 291

207 N.W.2d 291

296 Minn. 173

Gerald J. LaBELLE, Respondent, v.Margaret Ann LaBELLE, Appellant.

No. 43429.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 4, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

The central and overriding consideration in determining the question of a change in custody is the child's welfare and best interests.The court should review all relevant factors to determine whether a change in custody is warranted.It is not necessary that it be decided that either parent is unfit to have custody.

The trial court correctly exercised its discretion in determining that the best interests and welfare of the minor child were served by changing his custody from the mother to the father.

Nilva, Shaw & Frisch and Irving Shaw, St. Paul, for appellant.

Richard W. Greeman, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and TODD, MacLAUGHLIN, and OLSON, JJ.

MacLAUGHLIN, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order of the Ramsey County District Court, Family Court Division, amending a divorce decree by changing the custody of a minor son from the mother to the father, subject to the mother's right of reasonable visitation.We affirm.

At issue is the custody of the youngest child of the parties, Ross Thomas LaBelle, born January 18, 1958.Plaintiff, Gerald J. LaBelle, and defendant, Margaret Ann LaBelle, Ross' father and mother, were married on June 20, 1946, and divorced on November 16, 1970.At the time of the divorce three of the parties' children were under age 21--Ross; Maureen Alice, born August 20, 1951; and Mark James, born May 20, 1953.Pursuant to a stipulation agreed upon by the parties, the custody of these three children was awarded to the mother.Less than 4 months after the entry of the judgment and decree in the divorce action, the father made a motion for its amendment to, among other things, award him the custody of Ross.The motion was accompanied by an affidavit of Ross, who was then 13 years old, stating that he desired to be in his father's custody.The Family Court referee, after hearing testimony from the parties and another witness and considering a report from a probation officer recommending that Ross be in the father's custody, found that the best interests of Ross would be served by a continuation of custody in the mother.Upon the recommendation of the referee, an order was entered on August 25, 1971, by a judge of the Ramsey County District Court, who was not the judge of the Family Court Division.The order amended the divorce decree in several respects not pertinent here but continued custody of Ross with the mother.The father thereupon made a motion directed to the judge of the Family Court Division for review of the referee's findings and of the order based upon the referee's recommendations.After taking some additional testimony and conducting an interview with Ross, the judge of the Family Court Division vacated the order of August 25, 1971, and entered a new order amending the decree and awarding the custody of Ross to the father.

The custody of Maureen, who attends Bemidji State College and is essentially self-supporting, was continued in the mother subject to reasonable visitation by the father.The trial court found that Mark, who left his mother's home on March 25, 1971, and now lives with his father, had full-time employment and is an emancipated minor.Neither party contests the findings concerning Maureen and Mark.

The welfare and best interests of the child are the paramount considerations in selecting one of two parents in whom to place the care, custody, and control of a minor child.Hanson v. Hanson, 284 Minn. 321, 170 N.W.2d 213(1969).In matters of custody, the trial court is vested with a wide discretion, and its determination will not be reversed unless there is a clear abuse of that discretion.Hanson v. Hanson, Supra;Molto v. Molto, 242 Minn. 112, 64 N.W.2d 154(1954).In changing custody from one parent to another, we have sometimes discussed the issue in terms of a showing that 'the circumstances of the parties are markedly different from those * * * when the decree was...