Palmer v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 12 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 240,240 |
| Citation | 207 A.2d 481,238 Md. 327 |
| Parties | Green Barry PALMER, Jr. v. Irene Frances PALMER. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Edwin A. Lechowicz, Glen Burnie (Biener & Connell, Glen Burnie, on the brief), for appellant.
Ralph S. Greil and J. Louis Shavrick, Annapolis, for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.
This is an appeal from an emended decree dated May 8, 1964, awarding guardianship and custody of a minor child to the mother incident to the granting of a divorce a vinculo matrimonii to the father on the ground of the wife's adultery.
The pathetic facts of this case unfold a story which may be summarized as follows. The parties were married in 1954, a son, Douglas Gordon Palmer, was born of the marriage and was seven years of age at the time of the taking of testimony in open court. During the first years of their marriage, the parties lived together normally, making their home in Prince George's County. On January 5, 1958, the husband was seriously injured in an automobile accident, and as a result, he was hospitalized for nearly two and a half years being discharged in 1960 as a paraplegic, paralyzed from the waist down and unable to walk. For nearly two months, he returned to live with his wife and son until she left him alone in his helpless condition, taking with her the minor child. The husband then went to live with his sister and brother-in-law in Pelham, Georgia, where he remained until returning to Anne Arundel County, where his wife was then living, for the purpose of filing suit for divorce on the ground of her adultery, and for custody of his child.
The record clearly disclosed that the wife had become an adulteress. By her answer to the bill of complaint filed by the husband, she admitted committing the crime of adultery. In addition, she had given birth to a child which was fathered by her paramour. A witness testified to being an eyewitness to events which would indicate that the wife had committed adultery in a wooded area near Gambrills, Maryland. Another witness testified that he had sexual relations with her during the time when she was married to appellant, although she denied having had illicit relations with any one except her paramour. Furthermore, the record indicates that she was a frequent visitor to a tavern which was described by a representative of the Anne Arundel County Welfare Board in its report as having a 'reputation in the neighborhood for violence and sexual side lines.' The wife admitted that she has taken the minor son to this tavern on some of her visits there.
In addition to the wife's adulterous conduct and her frequenting of an undesirable tavern, the record shows that she interfered with and discuraged contacts between the father and his son. Also, the child lived in the poorest surroundings in a small, three room trailer in an isolated area, occupied by the mother, Douglas, the former paramour (they were married on February 8, 1964), and their four month old daughter. Further, testimony indicated that she had left the child without adult supervision. The Welfare Board reported that Douglas' progress in school was poor, with a low attendance record, and as a result he would have to repeat the first grade. The mother did not keep informed nor was she aware of his school progress, and ignored requests by the teachers for cooperation in helping in his educational development.
On the other hand, evidence showed that the father has attempted to continue contact with his son in spite of financial difficulties, his physical condition, and the actions of the wife. He had sent gifts to Douglas since the time of the separation. Although his income is derived from social security, it would be permanent and sufficient to provide for the child. He plans to take his son to his sister's home in Georgia. There, the Department of Family and Children Services of Mitchell County reported that an investigation was made of the home environment into which the father proposes to take the child, and recommended it as being suitable and adequate. That Department further stated that this family would welcome the child into their home willingly and are able to assist the father in raising him. It is also significant to point out that the Anne Arundel County Welfare Board, after a complete investigation recommended to the court below that custody of the minor child be awarded to the father.
Based upon the foregoing facts and circumstances the appellant contends the court erred in awarding custody of the minor child to the adulterous mother where the evidence was uncontradicted that he was an entirely fit and proper person and worthy of the child's custody. We agree.
The overriding consideration in determining to whom the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Davis
...'highly persuasive indicium' that the offending person is not the better of the two to raise the child. See e. g., Palmer v. Palmer, 238 Md. 327, 331, 207 A.2d 481, 483 (1965); Wallis v. Wallis, 235 Md. 33, 36-37, 200 A.2d 164, 165-66 Perhaps in response to the rapid social and moral change......
-
Robinson v. Robinson
...357, 157 A.2d at 446 (citation omitted). See also Queen v. Queen, 308 Md. 574, 587-88, 521 A.2d 320, 327 (1987); Palmer v. Palmer, 238 Md. 327, 331, 207 A.2d 481, 483 (1965); Ferster v. Ferster, 237 Md. 548, 550, 207 A.2d 96, 97-98 (1965); Wallis v. Wallis, 235 Md. 33, 36, 200 A.2d 164, 165......
-
Kirstukas v. Kirstukas, 316
...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. 1, 202 A.2d 372; Wallis v. Wallis, 235 Md. 33, 200 A.2d 164; Parker v. Parker, 222 Md. 69, 158 A.2......
-
Mullinix v. Mullinix, 614
...committed adultery will have the burden of proving his fitness. Insogna v. Insogna, 229 Md. 33, 181 A.2d 677 (1962); Palmer v. Palmer, 238 Md. 327, 207 A.2d 481 (1965), and Cornwell v. Cornwell, 244 Md. 674, 224 A.2d 870 (1966). Perhaps the most often applied rule of interpretation is that ......