Read v. Read
| Citation | 230 P.2d 46,103 Cal.App.2d 721 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 24 April 1951 |
| Parties | READ v. READ. Civ. 14715. |
Robert M. Wiley, Hemet, for appellant.
Tobriner & Lazarus and Leland J. Lazarus, San Francisco, for respondent.
In 1946 the parties to this action were divorced in Nevada upon an action brought by the wife. This decree adopted the provisions of an agreement that had been entered into by the parties concerning their property rights and the custody of the four minor children of the parties. As regards the custody of the children, the agreement, and hence the decree, provided that the mother should have custody of the children with the father having reasonable rights of visitation, but only at the home of the mother.
Subsequently the father brought an action in Alameda County to modify the custody provisions of the Nevada decree. An order was made by Judge Quinn modifying the custody provisions of the Nevada decree to the extent that the father could not only visit the children at the home of the mother at reasonable times, but could take the two oldest children with him on alternate Sundays. It was further provided, however, that '* * * he shall not take or permit to be taken any of said children to his home nor shall he permit any of said children to meet with or to be in the company of his present wife at any time when any of said children are taken from the defendant's home * * *'; and also, 'The defendant (mother) shall not by any act or word defame the character of the plaintiff or his present wife to any of said children.'
On April 28, 1947, at the time of Judge Quinn's order both parties and the four minor children lived in Alameda County. The father saw his children two or three times a week.
In June, 1947, approximately two months after Judge Quinn's order, the mother sold her home in Alameda County. Taking the four children she moved first to Calistoga, California, and then, in August, 1947, to Hemet, California, where she has since resided with the four children. Since that time the father has seen his children only once. Though the children corresponded frequently with their father at the beginning of their stay in Hemet, correspondence subsequently became very infrequent. The father's business as an accountant makes it difficult for him to travel to Hemet (near Los Angeles). It also appears that he is physically unable to drive the distance between Oakland and Hemet.
In June, 1950, the father petitioned the Superior Court of Alameda County for an order modifying the custody provisions of Judge Quinn's order. He sought the right to have the four children with him during a portion of their vacations from school. After a hearing, Judge Harris of the above court modified Judge Quinn's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Ward
...noncustodial parent may not alone justify a modification of the decree, it has been recognized as an important factor. Read v. Read, 103 Cal.App.2d 721, 230 P.2d 46; Cowen v. Cowen, 100 Cal.App.2d 366, 223 P.2d 666; Hughes v. Hughes, 180 Or. 575, 178 P.2d 170; McGetrick v. McGetrick, 204 Or......
-
Clark v. Clark, 87-655
...354, 389 N.W.2d 567 (1986); Parsons v. Parsons, 219 Neb. 736, 365 N.W.2d 841 (1985). In Marez, supra, this court cited Read v. Read, 103 Cal.App.2d 721, 230 P.2d 46 (1951), which held that when a mother moved her children to a distant part of the state, thus rendering frequent visits with t......
-
Smith v. Villafaña
...in the trial court's refusal to reverse the prior custody order and to grant Mother sole legal and physical custody. Citing Read v. Read (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 721, In re Marriage of Ciganovich (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 289 (Ciganovich), and Mark T. v. Jamie Z. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1115, Mother......
-
Feist v. Feist
...given notice in any manner whatsoever that her fitness to care for the children was in issue, nor was it in issue. (Read v. Read, 103 Cal.App.2d 721, 723-724, 230 P.2d 46.) She has no standing to challenge the findings on appeal. (Read v. Read, supra, 103 Cal.App.2d 721, 723, 230 P.2d 46.) ......