Powell v. Powell, 19216
| Decision Date | 03 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19216,19216 |
| Citation | 256 S.C. 111,181 S.E.2d 13 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joyce R. POWELL, Respondent, v. Perry Donald POWELL, Appellant. |
Rodney A. Culbertson, Clarence E. Clay, Greenville, for appellant.
George F. Townes, of Abrams, Bowen & Townes, Greenville, for respondent.
The Greenville County Family Court, on March 23, 1970, granted to Perry Donald Powell, the appellant herein, a divorce from Joyce R. Powell, the respondent herein, on the ground of adultery. By the terms of the divorce decree the custody of the minor daughters of the marriage was fixed; the custody of Cynthia Powell, age 5, was awarded to the paternal grandparents, and the custody of Angela Powell, age 4, was awarded to the appellant.
The record shows that by a written agreement dated June 15, 1965, the appellant and respondent gave full custody and control of Cynthia Powell to Perry E. Powell and Lucille B. Powell, the paternal grandparents of the said child. The court found that the aforesaid agreement was valid and that it was for the best interest of the said child that continued custody and control remain with the said grandparents.
On May 27, 1970, the respondent, who had married one Ronnie Teague following the divorce decree, filed a petition in The Family Court alleging that she had agreed with the appellant, who had also remarried, not to contest the divorce action with the understanding that the provisions for custody which had existed Pendente lite would not be disturbed, this being that the custody of Angela would remain with the respondent and the custody of Cynthia would remain with the paternal grandparents. She further alleged that the awarding of the custody in the divorce decree of March 23, 1970, was contrary to the aforesaid agreement and was not in the best interest of the children. The appellant, by answer, denied the aforesaid allegations and affirmatively alleged that the respondent had married Ronnie Teague, he being the person with whom she had committed adultery, and who had made a vicious assault upon the appellant, and was awaiting trial for such.
A hearing was convened by The Family Court on the issues raised by the petition of May 27, 1970, and the answer of the appellant thereto. Present at the hearing were both parties, their spouses, and counsel. At the close of the hearing, the trial judge stated that he would take the matter under advisement pending an investigation by a member of his staff. An investigation was made but no further hearing was held. On August 11, 1970, The Family Court issued its order, holding:
'After the taking of testimony from the Petitioner and her husband and from the Respondent, and after having investigated the homes of both parties and of the paternal grandparents, the Court finds that it would be in the best interest of the children that custody of them be placed in the petitioner, with reasonable visitation to the respondent and to the paternal grandparents.'
We have held in numerous cases that the welfare of the children and what is for their best interest is the primary, paramount and controlling consideration of the court in all controversies between the parents over the custody of their minor children. Todd v. Todd, 242 S.C. 263, 130 S.E.2d 552.
We have held that the award of the custody of children is not final and changed circumstances may authorize the change of custody in the future. Section 20--115 of the Code. Porter v. Porter, 246 S.C. 332, 143 S.C.2d 619. To get the change of custody, however, there must be a showing of new facts and circumstances. Pullen v. Pullen, 253 S.C. 123, 169 S.E.2d 376.
The appellant, by several exceptions, challenges the findings of fact below and the conclusion that it would be in the best interest of the children that their custody be placed with the respondent.
The lower court, without any specific findings of fact, awarded the custody of the two children to the respondent. This record reveals that the respondent had been guilty of adultery but The Family Court made no finding that she was a suitable and proper person to have the custody of these children, other than that 'it would be in the best interest of the children that custody of them be placed with' the respondent. We think the failure of The Family Court to make specific findings of fact is violative of Rule 13, Rules of Practice and Procedure in The Family Court, because such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singh v. Singh, Appellate Case No. 2015-000434
...is the primary, paramount and controlling consideration of the court in all child custody controversies."); Powell v. Powell , 256 S.C. 111, 116, 181 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1971) ("It is the duty of all courts to do that which is for the best interest of minor children and to protect their rights a......
-
Shaw v. Shaw
...court's concern with the negative environment resulting from this divorce, especially after Wife repudiated the settlement agreement. See id. (quoting Ford, 242 S.C. at 354, 130 S.E.2d at (stating custody agreements will be recognized unless the children's welfare requires a different resul......
-
Shaw v. Shaw
...the custody of children will be recognized unless the welfare of the children requires a different disposition." Powell v. Powell, 256 S.C. 111, 116, 181 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1971) (quoting Ford v. Ford, 242 S.C. 344, 354, 130 S.E.2d 916, 922 (1963)).We believe the family court did not err in den......
-
Peay v. Peay
...set forth the salient facts upon which the order is granted.' This rule should always be observed and we have, in Powell v. Powell, 256 S.C. 111, 181 S.E.2d 13 (1971), remanded the case because of failure to comply. Although the order now under review might have been more full, we cannot sa......
-
Family Court Approval of a Marital Settlement Agreement Over One Party's Objection
...286 S.C. at 131, 332 S.E.2d at 206. [12] Burnett v. Burnett, 290 S.C. 28, 30, 347 S.E.2d 908, 909 (Ct. App. 1986). [13] Powell v. Powell, 256 S.C. 111, 116, 181 S.E.2d 13, 16 (1971). [14] Rule 26(a), SCRFC. [15] Rule 42(b), SCRCP. [16] Burnett, 290 S.C. at 29, 347 S.E.2d at 909. [17] See Sa......