Pick v. Pick
| Decision Date | 23 December 1952 |
| Citation | 251 P.2d 472,197 Or. 74 |
| Parties | PICK v. PICK. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
John D. Galey, Sweet Home, for appellant. On the brief were T. M. Morris, Corvallis, and Galey & Galey, Sweet Home.
W. W. McKinney, Salem, for respondent.
Before BRAND, C. J., and ROSSMAN, LATOURETTE, WARNER and TOOZE, JJ.
This is a suit for divorce, instituted by Carol Pick, as plaintiff, against Richard C. Pick, as defendant. Plaintiff by her complaint charged defendant with cruel and inhuman treatment. Defendant answered, denied the material allegations of the complaint, and affirmatively charged plaintiff with cruel and inhuman treatment, praying a decree of divorce in his favor. Each party prayed to be awarded the custody of their minor child. The trial court entered a decree dismissing plaintiff's complaint, awarding a decree of divorce to defendant, and granting custody of the child to Bessie S. Pick, the mother of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Upon the oral argument in this court, plaintiff abandoned her appeal insofar as the decree of divorce is concerned, asking relief only from that part of the decree relating to the custody and support of the child. No property rights are involved.
Plaintiff and defendant were married at Toledo, Oregon, on September 27, 1947. Plaintiff was born and reared in Toledo and, with the exception of two short periods of time, has resided there all her life. On October 22, 1948, at Medford, Oregon, a daughter, Margaret Joyce Pick, was born as the issue of the marriage between plaintiff and defendant.
Carl McCalflin and Ethel McCalflin are the father and mother, respectively, of plaintiff. For more than 29 years they have been residents of Toledo. They own and operate an apartment house at Toledo, and also cabins for rental. They are substantial people and are well-to-do financially.
William Pick and Bessie S. Pick are the father and mother, respectively, of defendant. They have resided in Toledo for more than 12 years. They own their own home and enjoy a good standing in the community. Mr. Pick was formerly engaged in the fuel business, but at the time of trial he 'was not doing much except to care for buildings and haul lumber.' They have reared seven children, five boys and two girls, all of whom, except the youngest son, have left home.
After the marriage of plaintiff and defendant the parties lived for about three months with plaintiff's parents at Toledo. They the moved to Medford, where they lived with friends of defendant. Finally, when defendant obtained employment, they moved into a trailer house which had been purchased for their use by defendant's sister, and continued to reside therein until they left Medford.
On approximately November 1, 1948, when their daughter was about two weeks old, the parties returned to Toledo. For the first two weeks after their return, they made their home with defendant's parents. They then moved to the home of plaintiff's parents. Shortly thereafter they moved into one of the McCalflin apartments, and later into one of the cabins. Through the assistance of plaintiff's father, defendant obtained employment. For approximately a year he earned a wage of $500 per month. The McCalflins did not require the payment of any rental upon either the apartment or the cabin.
Plaintiff and defendant, with their minor daughter, continued to live together in the McCalflin cabin until the month of May, 1950, when defendant left the home. Since that time the parties have not lived together as husband and wife. Defendant enlisted in the United States Navy in July, 1950. He plans to make that his career.
With the exception of a short time when she was working as a domestic in a home at Bend, and for a period of about four weeks while employed in Portland, plaintiff lived, and at the time of trial was living, with her parents at Toledo. The child has been in her custody and with her continuously since its birth, even while she was employed away from home. Plaintiff's parents have assisted in the support of plaintiff and her child and expressed a willingness to continue that aid. Since October, 1950, plaintiff has received $40 per month as an allotment out of defendant's service pay.
As a part of his separate answer and cross-complaint, after charging plaintiff with cruel and inhuman treatment, defendant alleged as instances thereof the following:
'That said plaintiff did commit adultery with one Harold C. Oleman on the following dates and places:
'Seet Home, Oregon, on June 18, 1950; near Hoskins, Oregon, on July 1 and 2, 1950; at Portland, Oregon, on August 11, 1950; at Portland, Oregon on August 23 and 24, 1950; at Motel on Oak Street, between Portland and Oregon City on August 26, 1950; at Clifton Motel, between Portland and Oregon City, on September 1, 1950; at Motel on Oak Street, between Portland and Oregon City, on September 2, 1950; at Portland on September 3, 1950; and at Atlasta Motel near Foster, Oregon, on September 16, 1950.'
Defendant offered evidence upon the trial to substantiate his charges of adultery. Plaintiff, as well as her alleged paramour, Harold C. Oleman, categorically denied such alleged misconduct on their part. The evidence offered by defendant was largely circumstantial, but, if believed, was sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. There was other evidence in the record upon which a decree in defendant's favor might reasonably have been based, wholly apart from the charges of adultery. The trial court entered no findings of fact, and we cannot tell from the record whether it based its decree upon the proof respecting the charge of adultery or upon the evidence tending to show other alleged mistreatment of defendant by plaintiff. For the purposes of this case, it is wholly unnecessary for us to speculate upon what prompted the trial court in reaching its final conclusions.
With the future of this minor child in mind, we refrain from discussing in detail the evidence relating to the serious charges and counter-charges made by the parties to this suit against each other. No good purpose whatever would be served in making public and permanent this bizarre record.
In this case, as in all others involving the custody of a minor child, our paramount consideration is the welfare and best interests of this baby girl. We should not, nor will we, permit her to be made a pawn in the battle between her parents. Neither will we, nor should we, allow her to to be used as a weapon for punishment of either or both of her parents for their alleged wrongdoing.
The evidence as to plaintiff's alleged misconduct relates to a short period of time only; that is, from June, 1950, to September, 1950. No attempt was made to prove any wrongdoing on her part prior to that time, nor is there any evidence to show any misconduct by her subsequent to September, 1950. No public scandal is involved, nor, insofar as the record discloses, does plaintiff bear other than a good reputation in the community where she was born and has resided most of her lifetime.
During the time the alleged acts of indiscretion on the part of plaintiff occurred, the child was less than two years of age. Even if plaintiff was guilty of misconduct as claimed, it is obvious that this baby girl was too young to comprehend what was going on. The conduct of the mother could not possibly have produced any harmful effects upon the child at that time, nor have any direct bearing upon the child's welfare. It also is significant that insofar as the record discloses, the mother has led an exemplary life since September, 1950. In Goldson v. Goldson, 192 Or. 611, 621, 236 P.2d 314, 318, we said:
Aside from the evidence relating to plaintiff's associations with Oleman, there is nothing whatever in the record from which it might be inferred that 'her conduct is so depraved, immoral and wicked that to permit her child to remain in her custody would be injurious to its best interests', nor, in our opinion, granting as true the evidence respecting her relations with Oleman, is the situation in any manner changed. Goldson v. Goldson, supra.
The evidence is almost conclusive that plaintiff has been a good mother to her child. Defendant did not directly claim otherwise. She has had the child's care and custody from its birth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shrout v. Shrout
...or referred to in a number of later cases including the following: Pachkofsky v. Pachkofsky, 192 Or. 627, 236 P.2d 320; Pick v. Pick, 197 Or. 74, 79, 251 P.2d 472; Gibson v. Gibson, 196 Or. 198, 216, 247 P.2d 757; Laurance v. Laurance, 198 Or. 630, 258 P.2d 784; Wilson v. Wilson, supra; and......
-
Sisson v. Sisson
...the wife committed adultery, and the trial court found for the wife on that dispute. Nor was a finding of adultery made in Pick v. Pick, 197 Or. 74, 251 P.2d 472. In Norman v. Norman, 27 Wash.2d 25, 176 P.2d 349, a mother who had committed adultery was given custody. However, her illicit re......
-
Godfrey v. Godfrey
...court to make appropriate changes from time to time as the welfare and best interests of the children demand. ORS 107.130; Pick v. Pick, 197 Or. 74, 251 P.2d 472; Quinn v. Hanks, 192 Or. 254, 233 P.2d 767; Hughes v. Hughes, supra. The defendant, in asserting that the court is without jurisd......
-
Wilson v. Wilson
...court. Under the decisions by this court, defendant is clearly entitled to the custody of her son. Laurance v. Laurance, supra; Pick v. Pick, Or., 251 P.2d 472; Goldson v. Goldson, supra; Pachkofsky v. Pachkofsky, 192 Or. 627, 236 P.2d 320; Kellogg v. Kellogg, 187 Or 617, 213 P.2d 172; Jenk......