Murphy v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 11 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5575,5575 |
| Parties | James L. MURPHY, Appellant, v. Jo Ellen MURPHY, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant father and respondent mother were divorced in July 1963. Temporary physical custody of the two children, a boy and a girl, was given to the mother with technical legal custody in the Washoe County Welfare Department. In June 1964 the temporary physical custody of the children was given to the father. Over three years later, in November 1967, the mother moved for return of custody to her. In February 1968, after a hearing, the custody was again given to the mother. At that time the boy was 12 years old and the girl was 10 years old.
The trial court conferred with the children in chambers. It commented in open court that the children had no parental preference and loved both parents. Yet it found in its findings of fact that the children preferred their mother. This conflict cannot be resolved by this court because the interview in chambers was not preserved for appellate review. The court also found that both parties were fit to have custody.
A change of custody is warranted only when: (1) the circumstances of the parents have been materially altered; and (2) the child's welfare would be substantially enhanced by the change. Ferguson v. Krepper, 83 Nev. 408, 432 P.2d 668 (1967); Lyerla v. Ramsay, 82 Nev. 250, 415 P.2d 623 (1966); Sisson v. Sisson, 77 Nev. 478, 367 P.2d 98 (1961); Osmun v. Osmun, 73 Nev. 112, 310 P.2d 407 (1957); Nixon v. Nixon, 209 So.2d 878 (Fla.Ct.App.1968); Hirsh v. Dobb, 224 Ga. 130, 160 S.E.2d 386 (1968); Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer, 86 Ill.App.2d 224, 229 N.E.2d 144 (1967); Maikos v. Maikos, 147 N.W.2d 879 (Iowa 1967); Metz v. Morley, 29 A.D.2d 462, 289 N.Y.S.2d 364 (1968); Gibbons v. Gibbons, 442 P.2d 482 (Okl.1968); Holstein v. Holstein, 160 S.E.2d 177 (W.Va.1968).
The record does not show a sufficient change of circumstances. There is nothing in the record which supports its decree. The only change shown was the improved mental health of the mother. There is no evidence to suggest that the childrens' welfare would be promoted by a custody change.
The unqualified contention that there need be no change of circumstances shown when a temporary custody award is sought to be modified is unsound. The temporary award changed by the trial court was made almost four years...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metz v. Metz
...(providing that the sole consideration in awarding custody of a child is the best interest of the child). 47. Murphy v. Murphy, 84 Nev. 710, 447 P.2d 664 (1968). 48. Id. at 711, 447 P.2d at that while SSI benefits are exempt from income for child support calculations, SSD may be utilized as......
-
McGuinness v. McGuinness
...purely as a custody matter, decided on the basis of what is found to be in the best interest of the child. Under Murphy v. Murphy, 84 Nev. 710, 711, 447 P.2d 664, 665 (1968), where "the circumstances of the parents have been materially altered," custody may be changed, but only when "the ch......
-
Ellis v. Carucci
...court may modify primary physical custody of a minor child. In the past, this court has applied the two-prong test established in Murphy v. Murphy to determine when a modification of primary physical custody is appropriate.1 Under the Murphy test, a modification is "warranted only when: (1)......
-
Metz v. Metz, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 86 (NV 12/9/2004)
...(providing that the sole consideration in awarding custody of a child is the best interest of the child). 47. Murphy v. Murphy, 84 Nev. 710, 447 P.2d 664 (1968). 48. Id. at 711, 447 P.2d at that while SSI benefits are exempt from income for child support calculations, SSD may be utilized as......