Perley v. Perley
| Decision Date | 24 February 1960 |
| Citation | 349 P.2d 663,220 Or. 399 |
| Parties | Shirlee M. PERLEY, Respondent, v. Willis F. PERLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
McDannell Brown, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Virgil Colombo, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Byron Glade Birch, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and LUSK, SLOAN and DUNCAN, JJ.
On January 3, 1957, the court, in a contested case, awarded the plaintiff, Shirlee M. Perley, a decree of divorce from her husband, Willis F. Perley, and the custody of two minor children of the parties now aged respectively seven and five years. The decree granted the father visitation rights and further provided:
'That said children may be permitted to leave the jurisdiction of the Court with plaintiff upon the petition of the plaintiff to this Court and upon reasonable and seasonable notice to the defendant, as may be fixed by the Court, and upon such conditions and under such terms as may be permitted by the Court passing upon the said petition of the plaintiff for such permission.'
On February 3, 1959, the court, upon petition of the plaintiff and after notice to the defendant and a hearing at which both parties were represented by counsel, entered an order modifying the decree so as to authorize the plaintiff to remove the minor children to the state of Minnesota, subject to reasonable visitation rights of the defendant. From this order the defendant has appealed.
We affirm. Absent a provision in the decree to the contrary, the plaintiff had the right to move to another state and take her children with her. Levell v. Levell, 183 Or. 39, 45, 190 P.2d 527; Griffin v. Griffin, 95 Or. 78, 87, 187 P. 598. It follows that the court could properly, as it did in this case, provide in its decree that such permission might be granted after due notice to the defendant. Unlike a case involving modification of an order awarding the custody of children, it was not necessary as a condition precedent to the making of the present order that a change in circumstances be shown.
The basis of plaintiff's application was that her mother, brother and sister lived in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area and had asked her to return home and assured her of help in establishing herself and finding employment there. The question was addressed to the sound discretion of the court, the paramount consideration being the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Eusterman, Matter of
...to relax its requirements in appropriate situations. See Deffenbaugh and Deffenbaugh, 286 Or. 759, 596 P.2d 966 (1979); Perley v. Perley, 220 Or. 399, 349 P.2d 663 (1960). We conclude that the requirement of proof of changed circumstances is inapplicable to the question of modifying child s......
-
Marriage of McDonnal, Matter of
...to relax its requirements in appropriate situations. See Deffenbaugh and Deffenbaugh, 286 Or. 759, 596 P.2d 966 (1979); Perley v. Perley, 220 Or. 399, 349 P.2d 663 (1960)." Eusterman and Eusterman, 41 Or.App. 717, 727, 598 P.2d 1274 Deffenbaugh is a case in which the trial court, entering a......
-
In re Marriage of Cooksey, 02DM0133; A123987.
...should not lightly be disturbed by a court on appeal." Id. at 446, 595 P.2d 474. Quoting an earlier decision, Perley and Perley, 220 Or. 399, 401, 349 P.2d 663 (1960), the court stated that the decision of a trial court in such cases, "`when tested by appeal, comes here weighted with the pr......
-
Marriage of Jewell, Matter of, D7808-13288
...court reversed this court in a unanimous decision involving the threatened moving of a minor child to Canada. Accord: Perley and Perley, 220 Or. 399, 349 P.2d 663 (1960); Levell v. Levell, 183 Or. 39, 190 P.2d 527 (1948); Edwards v. Edwards, 191 Or. 275, 227 P.2d 975 (1951). Here, wife was ......