Raw v. Raw

• Decision Date: 18 June 1952
• Citation: 245 P.2d 431,195 Or. 373
• Parties: RAW v. RAW.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Page 431

245 P.2d 431

195 Or. 373

RAW v. RAW.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted June 5, 1952.

Decided June 18, 1952.

Stephen M. King, of Portland, argued the cause an filed a brief for appellant.

M. E. Reynolds, of Astoria, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Before BRAND, C. J., and HAY, LATOURETTE, WARNER, and TOOZE, JJ.

TOOZE, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order modifying that portion of a divorce decree relating to the custody of minor children.

On April 19, 1944, Irene E. Raw, as plaintiff, commenced suit for divorce in the circuit court for Clatsop county, against Vernon G. Raw, as defendant, upon the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Mary Ruth Raw, now 14 years of age, and Sarah Louise Raw, now 9 years of age, are the lawful issue of the marriage between plaintiff and defendant.

On July 20, 1944, a decree of divorce was entered in said court and suit in favor of plaintiff, which decree in part provided:

'It is further Ordered, Adjudged And Decreed that the said plaintiff, Irene E. Raw, be and she is hereby awarded the care, custody, control and education of Mary Ruth Raw and Sarah Louise Raw, the minor children of said parties until the further order of this Court, and that said defendant shall pay to the Clerk of this Court for the use and benefit of said plaintiff for the support of the minor children of said parties, the sum of $50.00 per week, for each and every week hereafter until the further order of this Court.

'And in respect to the custody of said minor children it is further Ordered that said defendant may visit and be with the said children at all reasonable times, places and hours.'

On August 13, 1951, defendant filed his motion, supported by affidavit, for a modification of said decree by awarding him the care, custody, and control of said minor children during the months of June, July, and August of each year. Plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to the motion and affirmatively moved for an order increasing the allowances for the support of said minor children, to the sum of $250 per month for and on account of Mary Ruth Raw, and to the sum of $150 per month for and on account of Sarah Louise Raw. Plaintiff's motion was supported by her affidavit.

A hearing was held on October 17, 1951, and oral testimony was offered by both parties. Based upon the testimony, the trial court allowed defendant's motion in part and denied the motion of plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals.

No good purpose will be served by reviewing the testimony in detail. The record discloses that defendant at all times faithfully discharged his financial duties to plaintiff. Furthermore, it conclusively appears from the record that, in addition to the payments of support money required by the decree, defendant voluntarily made very substantial contributions to and for his children. Among other things, he bought them a piano costing $1,600; purchased clothing; provided each child with a radio, and also with a a record player, camera, and Parker pen. During 1950 he sent the older child $5 per week as an allowance, and the younger child, $1 per week. He also sent each child a monthly clothing allowance, $28 for the older, and $18 for the younger. He paid a number of doctor and dental bills for services rendered the children, and offered to pay all of such bills. Defendant's conduct exhibited a deep concern for the welfare and happiness of the children, and a real desire to cooperate with plaintiff in promoting their best interests. It is agreed that plaintiff has been and is a good mother to these girls, and has reared and trained them properly.

Shortly after the divorce in 1944, plaintiff moved to California, taking the children with her. She has since resided in California, her present residence being in North Hollywood. In 1946 plaintiff married one Grayson, an employe of American Vitamin Association. Grayson has an income of approximately $500 per month. Defendant remarried in 1945. He resides in Seaside, where both plaintiff and defendant resided at the time of the divorce, and where defendant's principal place of business is located.

At the time of divorce considerable bitterness existed between the parties. To prevent their disputes from having any effect upon the children, defendant did not attempt to visit the children until some time after plaintiff had...