McGregor v. McGregor, 19131
| Decision Date | 24 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19131,19131 |
| Citation | 177 S.E.2d 599,255 S.C. 179 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rita Millsaps McGREGOR, Appellant, v. Coy Marion McGREGOR, Jr., Respondent. |
Frank A. Graham, Jr., Columbia, for appellant.
Cromer & Louthian, Columbia, for respondent.
Rita Millsaps McGregor, the appellant herein, and Coy Marion McGregor, Jr., the respondent herein, were heretofore husband and wife. There was born of this marriage a son, Thomas Lee McGregor, who was twenty-six months of age at the time of the hearing of this case in the lower court. The marriage of the parties to the action was terminated by a divorce on May 5, 1969, and the custody of the minor son was awarded to the mother, and the respondent was granted the right to visit his child at the mother's residence in Columbia, South Carolina, every weekend, but not to remove the child from the residence without the mother's prior approval in writing.
The respondent filed a petition on or about December 10, 1969, requesting more extended visitation privileges with his son, and specifically allowing him to take the child from the home of the mother at such times and periods as to the court may deem just and proper and have the said child with him in his home in Florence, South Carolina. Based upon said petition, the Honorable Legare Bates, Judge of the Richland County Court, issued an order requiring the appellant to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. The appellant duly filed a return and answer in which she demanded that the petition be dismissed and the relief requested be denied.
The matter was heard on an agreed statement of facts and the trial judge, on January 20, 1970, amended the custody and visitation provisions of the original divorce decree, whereby the father was granted the right to have his son visit with him in his home in Florence, South Carolina, the first weekend in each month thereafter. The child was to be picked up by either one of his paternal grandparents at the home of the mother in Columbia, South Carolina, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. on Saturday, and returned by them no later than 6:00 o'clock P.M. on the Sunday following. It is from this order that the appellant prosecutes this appeal.
It is stipulated that the father is twenty-eight years of age and is now a resident of Florence, South Carolina. He is engaged in construction work, being a machine operator, and at the time of this trial was working on a job in Monroe, North Carolina, and returns home only on the weekends. The respondent has remarried since the divorce decree of May 5, 1969, and has established a suitable home with proper environment where the child can visit him. The paternal grandparents are established members of the Florence community and have a respectable home there. They are willing to be personally responsible for the welfare of the child while he is visiting the respondent.
The appellant is twenty-five years of age, residing with her parents in Richland County, South Carolina, and is now employed by a state agency. The minor child is under the care of a physician because of an asthmatic condition, and it was the opinion of the physician that the child would not be benefited, physically or emotionally, by removing him from his present home environment, even for a brief period. It also appears that there are several physicians in Florence, South Carolina, who are fully capable of treating the said child in the event of an asthmatic attack during visit his paternal grandparents in Florence, South Carolina, in November, 1969, without any apparent ill effect, but upon his return home he had an asthmatic attack which required the attention of a physician.
Where the custody of a minor child is awarded to one parent by a divorce decree, it is the prevailing practice to insert in the decree a provision granting visitation rights to the parent who does not have custody. Of course, a court, in granting the custody of a minor child to one parent, has the power to deny visitation rights to the other parent when the circumstances justify such, and the rights of visitation should not be denied unless the court is convinced that such are detrimental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noojin v. Noojin
...our state's policy to ensure minor children of divorce are not estranged from the noncustodial parent. See McGregor v. McGregor , 255 S.C. 179, 183, 177 S.E.2d 599, 600 (1970) (“The general rule is that minor children, notwithstanding the divorce, are entitled to the love and companionship ......
-
Aldie v. Grossman
...and changed circumstances may authorize the change of custody or visitation rights in the future." (quoting McGregor v. McGregor, 255 S.C. 179, 183, 177 S.E.2d 599, 600-01 (1970))). Similar to changes of custody, modification of visitation must be in the best interests of the child. See Pap......
-
Aldie v. Grossman, 2019-UP-080
... ... custody or visitation rights in the future." (quoting ... McGregor v. McGregor , 255 S.C. 179, 183, 177 S.E.2d ... 599, 600-01 (1970))). Similar to changes of ... ...
-
Cudd v. Arline, 21613
...order granting the visitation rights will not be disturbed. King v. Gardner, 274 S.C. 493, 265 S.E.2d 260 (1980); McGregor v. McGregor, 255 S.C. 179, 177 S.E.2d 599 (1970). We find no abuse of Finally, appellant contends that her award of One Hundred Fifty ($150.00) Dollars partial attorney......