Parish v. Parish

Decision Date12 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 48130,48130
Citation220 Kan. 131,551 P.2d 792
PartiesDiane PARISH, Appellant, v. W. Scott PARISH, Appellee.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

In a divorce action wherein the trial court awarded custody of minor children to the husband, divided the parties' property but denied alimony to the wife, the record is examined, and for the reasons set forth in the opinion, it is held: (a) the trial court did not abuse the exercise of its power of discretion in these three areas; and (b) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.

Charles E. Henshall, Chanute, argued the cause, and John C. Rubow, Chanute, was with him on the briefs for appellant.

Charles F. Forsyth, Erie, argued the cause, and Clark M. Fleming, Erie, was with him on the brief for appellee.

SCHROEDER, Justice.

This is an appeal by Diane Parish (plaintiff-appellnt), from the trial court's order in a divorce action which awarded custody of the parties' two children to W. Scott Parish (defendant-appellee), divided the parties' property but denied alimony to her. The appellant alleges the trial court abused the exercise of its power of discretion in these three areas.

W. Scott Parish (hereafter Scott) and Diane Parish were married on July 30, 1962. Two sons were born to this marriage; Brad, age twelve and Bart, age six. When the Parishes were first married, Scott was a phrmacy student and Diane was the main breadwinner of the family. For the last six years Scott has worked as a pharmacist in Chanute and Diane has not been employed outside the home for quite a long time.

Problems developed in the marriage. The major difficulty was Diane wanted to live an active social life and Scott did not. Scott described himself as a homebody who pretty much liked to stay home. The Parishes would go out maybe one time a week which was not enough for Diane.

In August of 1974, Diane became so dissatisfied with the family life-style that she began a course of nurses training. Communications between Diane and Scott broke down. Diane filed for divorce, but the parties reconciled.

On April 8, 1975, Diane again filed for divorce, on the grounds of incompatibility, requesting custody of the children, an equitable division of property and alimony.

The trial court after hearing the evidence agreed the parties had become incompatible and granted a decree of divorce. Scott was given custody of the two children, subject to reasonable visitation by the appellant. The property was divided. Diane was not awarded alimony.

The appellant has duly perfected this appeal contending the trial court abused its discretion in making these decisions.

The appellant first contends the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the children to the appellee. This court has always recognized the value of maternal love and care where children are of tender age, and absent a finding of unfitness, a mother is ordinarily entitled to the custody of children of tender years. (Schreiner v. Schreiner, 217 Kan. 337, 342, 537 P.2d 165; Lewis v. Lewis, 217 Kan. 366, 369, 537 P.2d 204, and St. Clair v. St. Clair, 211 Kan. 468, 507 P.2d 206.) This rule is applied because in most cases the mother is more available in the home. (Patton v. Patton, 215 Kan. 377, 379, 524 P.2d 709.)

However, no fixed rule requires that custody of minor children be awarded to their mother rather than to their father. (Lewis v. Lewis,supra, 217 Kan. at 369, 537 P.2d 204; Hardenburger v. Hardenburger, 216 Kan. 322, 532 P.2d 1106; Moudy v. Moudy, 211 Kan. 213, 505 P.2d 764, and Gardner v. Gardner, 192 Kan. 529, 389 P.2d 746.) Thus, while the appellee's answer to the appellant's divorce petition admitted the appellant was a fit and proper person to have custody of the children, the appellant is not automatically entitled to their custody.

In determining the right of custody of children between parents, the primary consideration is the best interest and welfare of the children, and all other issues are subordinate thereto. (Schreiner v. Schreiner, supra, 217 Kan. at 342-343, 537 P.2d 165, and Lewis v. Lewis, supra, 217 Kan. at 369, 537 P.2d 204.) Which parent will do a better job of rearing the children and providing a better home environment is highly relevant. (Patton v. Patton, supra, 215 Kan. at 379, 524 P.2d 709, and Hardenburger v. Hardenburger, supra.)

No witness testified Scott would not be a good father for the boys. After working nine or ten hours a day, Scott found time to coach baseball, play golf with Brad and take the boys horseback riding and fishing.

On the other hand, the trial court found the appellant was frequenting taverns or private clubs in the absence of her husband, keeping extremely late hours away from home, and leaving public places in the company of other men. On these occasions Scott was home with the boys.

The judgment of the trial court, who is in the most advantageous position to judge how the interest of the children may best be served, should not be disturbed without an affirmative showing of abuse of discretion. No abuse of discretion is shown in the court's custody award under the facts and circumstances involved.

The appellant next contends the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the parties' property between them. Scott's financial statement showed he had a 1974 income of $32,000. When first arriving in Chanute, the Parishes had nothing in the way of material wealth. When the divorce was filed, the Parishes had a net worth of $75,318. Diane was not awarded alimony, but was given the following items:

'Any cash on hand now in her possession; Items of personal furniture obtained by her as keepsakes from her family;

'Sewing machine, and furniture ordinarily used by the wife;

'Her dishes, china, silverware, and such items as a woman ordinarily brings into a marriage through savings or gifts;

'1972 Buick automobile;

'General obligation bonds of approximate value of $26,000.00;

'Certificate of deposit, approximate value of $5,300.00; and including the diamond ring of the plaintiff.'

The value of this ward is well over $33,000.00.

Scott was awarded the family home valued at $38,000, but subject to a $17,298.18 mortgage. He was also awarded the 'cash on hand now in his possession,' the household furnishings except those specifically set over to the appellant, his business inventory and equipment, an older automobile, some pharmaceutical stock valued at $320, and a Keough Plan and annuity and mutual funds valued at $7,300. The appellee was further ordered to pay the sum of $650 for the appellant's attorney fee.

K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 60-1610(b) directs the court to divide the parties' property in a just and reasonable manner. The division of property made by the trial court in a divorce proceeding will not be modified or set aside absent a clear abuse of discretion. (Wofford v. Wofford, 214 Kan. 450, 452-453, 520 P.2d 1278, and Downing v. Downing, 218 Kan. 549, 542 P.2d 709.)

In determining a just and reasonable division of property, the trial court should take into consideration the following factors: (1) The ages of the parties; (2) the duration of the marriage; (3) the property owned by the parties; (4) their present and future earning capacities; (5) the time, source and manner of acquisition of the property; (6) family ties and obligations; (7) the question of fault when determined; and (8) the allowance of alimony or lack thereof. (LaRue v. LaRue, 216 Kan. 242, 250, 531 P.2d 84, and Downing v. Downing, supra, 218 Kan. at 550, 542 P.2d 709.)

In a divorce case, a decision as to care of the minor children, maintenance of the parties, and division of property cannot be made intelligently without regard to the others. (Wofford v. Wofford, supra, 214 Kan. at 451, 520 P.2d 1278.) Here the trial court gave the appellee custody of the children, and therefore set over to him the home and furnishings. The appellant was given her personal belongings, a car and the rest of the 'liquid' assets the parties had accumulated. The value of the property awarded was about equal. This...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • In re Adoption of A.A.T.
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 12, 2008
    ...or denying stepparent's adoption application; best interests of child not controlling factor but may be considered); Parish v. Parish, 220 Kan. 131, 132, 551 P.2d 792 (1976) (determining custody between two fit biological parents; "In determining the right of custody of children between par......
  • Guardianship of Williams, Matter of
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1994
    ...a parent by agreement has transferred legal custody of the child to another. The best interests test was stated in Parish v. Parish, 220 Kan. 131, 132, 551 P.2d 792 (1976), as follows: "In determining the right of custody of children between parents, the primary consideration is the best in......
  • Marriage of Sedbrook, Matter of
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1992
    ...relating to alimony, and its judgment in awarding alimony will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion." Parish v. Parish, 220 Kan. 131, 134, 551 P.2d 792 (1976). K.S.A.1991 Supp. 60-1610(b)(2), which relates to maintenance, provides in part: "The decree may award to either part......
  • M.M.L., In Interest of, 73049
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 21, 1995
    ...to custody of their children absent a finding of unfitness. The court stated: "The best interests test was stated in Parish v. Parish, 220 Kan. 131, 132, 551 P.2d 792 (1976), as follows: 'In determining the right of custody of children between parents, the primary consideration is the best ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles

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