Rasmussen v. Rasmussen

Decision Date02 January 1925
Citation113 Or. 146,231 P. 964
PartiesRASMUSSEN v. RASMUSSEN.
CourtOregon Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; H. H. Belt, Judge.

Application by Walter Rasmussen for modification of divorce decree relating to custody of child. From an order modifying the decree, Ethel Rasmussen, now Ethel Sowers, appeals. Affirmed.

Robin Day, of Salem, for appellant.

Oscar Hayter, of Dallas, for respondent.

BEAN J.

On May 2, 1921, a decree of divorce was rendered by the circuit court for Polk county in favor of defendant, Walter Rasmussen, and against the plaintiff, Ethel Rasmussen, now Ethel Sowers, after the plaintiff had withdrawn her complaint for a divorce. The care and custody of Leroy Rasmussen, minor child of the parties, who was born on the 14th day of January, 1916, was awarded to the defendant, Walter Rasmussen. The plaintiff was given the right to visit with the child, and "to have said child visit with her at any and all reasonable times and places." The order provided the child should not be removed from the state of Oregon without the written consent of the court.

On the application of defendant, Walter Rasmussen, for a modification of the decree relating to the custody of the child, so as to eliminate from the provisions of the order that the plaintiff has the right "to have said child visit with her"; and upon a counter application made by plaintiff, praying that the future care and custody of the minor child be awarded to her after hearing the testimony on September 23, 1922, the court granted the application of defendant, Walter Rasmussen, and decreed that the care custody, nurture, education, and control of Leroy Rasmussen minor child of said parties, be committed and awarded to the defendant, Walter Rasmussen, until the further order of the court; provided:

"That the plaintiff may visit with said child at the home of the defendant once in every two weeks, and for one hour in each visit, if she shall so desire, and shall give the defendant notice in writing of each intended visit at least five days prior thereto.
"(2) The defendant and his wife shall remain absent from the room while plaintiff is visiting with said child under the privileges hereby granted."

The decree provided the plaintiff shall not remove the child from the home or custody of the defendant; that the defendant should not remove the child from Polk county, Or., without the written consent of the court. The plaintiff appeals from the order modifying the provisions of the decree denying her application for custody of the minor child.

It appears that since the rendition of the decree of divorce both of the parties have made new marital alliances. The defendant Walter Rasmussen resides with his present wife on a farm near Dallas, Or. The plaintiff, Ethel Sowers, resides with her husband in Salem, Or.

In deciding this delicate question the paramount...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Shrout v. Shrout
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 9, 1960
    ...P. 721, 184 P. 272; Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 252, 186 P. 36; Johnson v. Johnson, 102 Or. 407, 413, 202 P. 722; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 148, 231 P. 964; Henry v. Henry, 156 Or. 679, 683, 69 P.2d 280; Van Doozer v. Van Doozer, 181 Or. 274, 277, 181 P.2d 126; Cripe-Dunn v. Cr......
  • Henrickson v. Henrickson
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • January 11, 1961
    ...supra, 192 Or. at page 617, 236 P.2d at page 316; Meredith v. Meredith, 1954, 203 Or. 45, 47, 276 P.2d 387; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 1925, 113 Or. 146, 148, 231 P. 964. This element of finality continues, notwithstanding the order was entered ex parte. Phillips v. Phillips, 175 Or. 14, 26, 1......
  • Leverich v. Leverich
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1944
    ...their welfare. McKissick v. McKissick, 93 Or. 644, 653, 174 P. 721, 184 P. 272; Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 186 P. 36; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 231 P. 964; Borigo v. Borigo, supra (142 Or. 46, 18 P. (2d) 810); Henry v. Henry, 156 Or. 679, 69 P. (2d) In the instant case, the ev......
  • Thompson v. Thompson
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1952
    ...of a minor child is final and cannot be modified by the court rendering it. See Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 186 P. 36; Rasmussen v. Rasmussen, 113 Or. 146, 231 P. 964; Ellenburg v. Woodson, 131 Or. 440, 283 P. 27; Sachs v. Sachs, 145 Or. 23, 25 P.2d 159, 26 P.2d 780. And when an order cha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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