Meredith v. Meredith
| Decision Date | 10 November 1954 |
| Citation | 203 Or. 45,276 P.2d 387 |
| Parties | Pete MEREDITH, Respondent, v. Caroline Frances MEREDITH, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Charles R. Cater, La Grande, for appellant.
C. Richard Neely, La Grande, Helm & Neely, La Grande, on the brief, for respondent.
Before LATOURETTE, C. J., and WARNER, LUSK, BRAND, TOOZE and PERRY,, JJ.
This is an appeal by the defendant Caroline Frances Meredith from an order modifying a decree of divorce (as modified) respecting the custody of a minor child.
Michael Meredith, son of plaintiff and defendant, is four years of age. His parents were divorced by decree entered February 9, 1952. By stipulation of the parties, the decree awarded temporary custody of Michael to his paternal grandparents. On March 27, 1953, the decree was modified by awarding custody of Michael to his mother, the defendant. On January 16, 1954, plaintiff moved the court for an order modifying the decree by awarding sole custody of Michael to him. The motion was based upon a number of affidavits. Counteraffidavits were filed by defendant. The matter came on for hearing before the court on February 15, 1954. In addition to the affidavits and counteraffidavits filed as aforesaid, the court considered oral testimony offered at the time of trial. On February 23, 1954, the court entered an order modifying the decree (as theretofore modified) by awarding custody of Michael to his paternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Ray Meredith. The defendant appeals.
We have carefully considered the affidavits and counteraffidavits filed in the case, together with the oral testimony produced at the time of trial. A consideration of the child's future welfare and happiness restrains us from detailing the charges and countercharges made by the parties to this litigation. No good purpose whatever would be served in making public and permanent this bizarre record. It is enough to say that the greater portion of the showing made by plaintiff in support of his motion to modify the decree related to matters that occurred, if they occurred at all, prior to the modification of the decree dated March 27, 1953, and even to matters occurring prior to the original divorce decree. We have repeatedly held that a decree respecting the care and custody of a minor child is res judicata as to what is for its best interests at the time of such decree, and that an award of custody will not be disturbed unless there is a subsequent change in circumstances and conditions warranting a modification. Goldson v. Goldson, 192 Or. 611, 617, 236 P.2d 314.
Moreover, the affidavits filed by plaintiff are rife with hearsay, unjust and unjustifiable innuendoes, and baseless conclusions. We are satisfied from the record that the defendant mother loves her child, and that during the comparatively short time the child was in her actual care and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Ward
...Miss. 320, 15 So.2d 698; Goodman v. Goodman, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W.2d 641; Goldson v. Goldson, 192 Or. 611, 236 P.2d 314; Meredith v. Meredith, 203 Or. 45, 276 P.2d 387; Brim v. Struthers, 44 Wash.2d 833, 271 P.2d 441. The court, in issuing the original decree, found that the arrangement, t......
-
Henrickson v. Henrickson
...res judicata in any later modification matter. Goldson v. Goldson, supra, 192 Or. at page 617, 236 P.2d at page 316; Meredith v. Meredith, 1954, 203 Or. 45, 47, 276 P.2d 387; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 1925, 113 Or. 146, 148, 231 P. 964. This element of finality continues, notwithstanding the ......
-
Wengert v. Wengert
...236 P.2d 320; Sakraida v. Sakraida, 192 Or. 217, 217 P.2d 242, 233 P.2d 762; Pick v. Pick, 197 Or. 74, 251 P.2d 472; and Meredith v. Meredith, 203 Or. 45, 276 P.2d 387. If this were merely a contest between the parties we might well say that the innocent party is entitled to the child. We c......