Oberlander v. Oberlander

Decision Date06 February 1970
Docket NumberNo. 274,274
Citation256 Md. 672,261 A.2d 727
PartiesRobert G. OBERLANDER v. Catherine F. OBERLANDER.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Peter R. Sherman, Washington, D. C. (Barnard T. Welsh, Rockville, on the brief), for appellant.

Robert H. Symonds, Hillcrest Heights, for appellee.

Before BARNES, FINAN, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.

BARNES, Judge.

The appellant Robert George Oberlander (Robert) challenges in this appeal the portion of the final decree of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Shure, J.) which, in a divorce suit divorcing the parties a vinculo matrimonii, awarded the custody of James Robert Oberlander (Jimmy), the infant son of Robert and the appellee, Catherine Frances Oberlander (Catherine), to Catherine. Robert also challenged the action of the trial court in refusing to entertain his motion, filed after the decree, to reduce child support payments of $40.00 a week on the ground that he was being inducted into the United States Army and his entire income would be less than the amount allowed for child support.

Robert and Catherine were married in June, 1964, while both were in high school, Robert being 19 years old and Catherine being 16 years of age. Jimmy was born three months later. At the time of the marriage, Robert was living with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Howard George Oberlander, in Bethesda. Mr. Oberlander is treasurer for U. S. News and World Report in Washington and has been for some 23 years. He is also an elder in Bethesda Presbyterian Church. His oldest son is an accountant; his second son was, at the time of the hearing in the case, in training as a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mrs. Oberlander (Sylvia Waterhouse Oberlander) is not employed. At the invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Oberlander, Robert, Catherine and Jimmy moved into their house where the young couple and their infant son occupied a private part of the family home including a bedroom, nursery and den. They lived there rent free and without the payment of expenses for food or other necessities so that both Robert and Catherine could complete their high school education and begin college programs with the financial assistance of Robert's parents. These arrangements were made necessary because neither Robert nor Catherine was working or had any money to support their family.

Problems arose in the marriage about the time Jimmy was born in September, 1964, and continued until Robert and Catherine stopped living together in August, 1967. Robert testified that these problems arose because of Catherine's failure to assume her responsibilities as a wife and mother in keeping their portion of the house clean and orderly and taking proper care of Jimmy, including not keeping him clean or feeding him. He stated also that Catherine was argumentative and surly. His testimony was substantially confirmed by the testimony of his mother, Mrs. Oberlander. Catherine, on the other hand, testified that the problems arose as the result of many arguments with her in-laws 'based on just interference here and there, criticism from my mother-in-law on the way I handled things, the way I did things, and just a lot of childish bickering.'

The parties separated in August, 1967, the trial court properly finding on the evidence that the separation was pursuant to a mutual agreement between the parties. Robert moved into an apartment in Montgomery County. Catherine, having lost her job, remained at the Oberlander home until about September 1 when she moved to her father's residence in Prince George's County.

For the first two weeks in September, 1967, Jimmy resided principally with Robert during the daytime hours and with Catherine in the evenings in accordance with an arrangement between the parties. About the middle of September after Catherine had moved to her father's home, Jimmy was visiting with her and was to be returned to Robert on a Friday evening. Catherine, however, did not return Jimmy, but took him in Mr. Oberlander's automobile and left for California without notifying Robert or his parents of her intentions. When she arrived in California, she moved in with her relatives there, sharing with Jimmy and two cousins a two bedroom apartment. Catherine testified that it was her intention to work, to continue to live under this arrangement until she had sufficient money to set up her own apartment. Catherine did not notify Robert where she was, but approximately two weeks later about October 1, 1967, Robert learned that Catherine might be with her relatives in California. He then went to California and brought Jimmy back to Maryland.

Upon Robert's return to Maryland, he enrolled Jimmy in a nursery school and continued this during the two year period between then and the time of trial. Robert spent most of his daylight hours caring for his son; and when he went to work in the evenings, he either hired a baby sitter at his apartment or would take Jimmy to the home of his parents. Robert commenced religious training every Sunday for Jimmy at the Bethesda Presbyterian Church.

Catherine remained in California for some six months after Jimmy was returned to Maryland, having various jobs as a waitress in a restaurant, a Kelly Girl, and an Avon Sales Representative. She returned to Maryland on April 14, 1968, and moved in again with her father.

Without reviewing the rest of the testimony in detail, there was evidence from which the trial court could find, as it did, that there was no sufficient evidence to show that Catherine was an unfit mother, that she intended to leave Maryland and live elsewhere, or that she was guilty of immoral conduct. The trial court was impressed with Catherine's demeanor on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Kirstukas v. Kirstukas, 316
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 31, 1972
    ...See also 2 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, Section 15.09 (2d ed., 1945); Kauten v. Kauten, 257 Md. 10, 261 A.2d 759; Oberlander v. Oberlander, 256 Md. 672, 261 A.2d 727; Cornwell v. Cornwell, 244 Md. 674, 224 A.2d 870; Palmer v. Palmer, 238 Md. 327, 207 A.2d 481; Sellman v. Sellman, 236 Md. ......
  • Mullinix v. Mullinix, 614
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 28, 1971
    ...129 (1967); Fanning v. Warfield, 252 Md. 18, 248 A.2d 870 (1969); Krebs v. Krebs, 255 Md. 264, 257 A.2d 428 (1969); Oberlander v. Oberlander, 256 Md. 672, 261 A.2d 727 (1970); Neuwiller v. Neuwiller, 257 Md. 285, 262 A.2d 736 (1970); Goldschmiedt v. Goldschmiedt, 258 Md. 22, 265 A.2d 264 (1......
  • Elza v. Elza
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1984
    ...of young children to the mother. This phenomenon is known as the "maternal preference" doctrine. The Court in Oberlander v. Oberlander, 256 Md. 672, 261 A.2d 727 (1970), delineated the principle as follows: "In determining what is the best interest of the child, it is entirely proper for th......
  • McAndrew v. McAndrew, 564
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1977
    ..."See also 2 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment, Section 15.09 (2d ed., 1945); Kauten v. Kauten, 257 Md. 10, 261 A.2d 759; Oberlander v. Oberlander, 256 Md. 672, 261 A.2d 727; Cornwell v. Cornwell, 244 Md. 674, 224 A.2d 870; Palmer v. Palmer, 238 Md. 327, 207 A.2d 481; Sellman v. Sellman, 236 Md.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT