Renard v. Renard, No. 18719
| Docket Nº | No. 18719 |
| Citation | 132 N.E.2d 278, 126 Ind.App. 245 |
| Case Date | February 24, 1956 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 278
v.
Margaret RENARD, Appellee.
[126 Ind.App. 246]
Page 279
Bernard Landman, Jr., Charles B. Feibleman, Indianapolis, Paul R. Schnaitter, Madison, Bamberger & Feibleman, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellant.James M. Tucker, James L. Tucker, Paoli, Joseph M. Cooper, Madison, Tucker & Tucker, Paoli, Cooper, Cooper, Cooper & Cox, Madison, of counsel, for appellee.
KENDALL, Judge.
Appellee was granted a divorce from appellant November, 1951, together with custody of their child, between two and three years of age. The appellant was granted visiting privileges with the child.
In March, 1954, appellant filed petition for modification of the original decree for additional visitation rights, resulting in a finding and judgment for appellee at appellant's cost.
Errors relied upon for reversal are, that the judgment on the petition for modification was contrary to law and that the court abused its discretion in refusing to modify the decree as prayed for.
The question presented is one involving sound judicial discretion rather than a hard and fast rule of law. Crowe v. Crowe, 1946, 116 Ind.App. 534, 65 N.E.2d 645; Weber v. Redding, 1928, 200 Ind. 448, 163 N.E. 269; Johnson v. Smith, 1931, 203 Ind. 214, 176 N.E. 705; 17 Am.Jur. (Divorce and Separation) § 683, p. 517. In matters of this nature, the law is well settled that we should not disturb[126 Ind.App. 247] the judgment of the trial court unless the record discloses a clear and manifest abuse of discretion. We are guided by the same rule of law in the decision of this matter as if the petitioner was having an outright modification of custody of children.
Page 280
To determine this question requires a review of the evidence most favorable to the appellee.
The appellant was the only witness in his bahalf. His testimony was to the effect that he wanted the periods of visitation extended during the summer; for the child to spend alternate Christmas vacations with him, as well as one-half of the summer vacations; that he be permitted to travel outside the State of Indiana with the child; that the appellant had lived in New York City all of his life, was not acquainted with many people in Indiana; was engaged in the dry-cleaning business in that city; that if he were permitted to take the child to New York, he could go on vacations with the child; that his mother and sister who would help him care for the child were seventy-five and forty-five years of age respectively, who likewise lived in an apartment; that he had no objection regarding the welfare of the child during the time that appellee had such custody; that in New York City he maintained a two-room apartment.
The appellee testified that the child was attending first grade in a private school in Indianapolis, and that, in her opinion, it would not be beneficial to the child's welfare to go to New York with appellant; that she was acquainted with appellant's mother and had seen her apartment. She gave testimony in reference to an invitation to appellant on Christmas morning to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dufour v. Dufour, No. 1170A197
...permanent custody of the children, it has been held that the same rule is applicable to both types of cases. Renard v. Renard (1956), 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278. The rule to which we refer has been consistently followed by the courts of this state, and was followed in Adams v. Purtleb......
-
Marshall v. Reeves, No. 674S112
...v. Hall (1962), 134 Ind.App. 256, 185 N.E.2d 542; Gatchel v. Gatchel (1961), 132 Ind.App. 56, 175 N.E.2d 887; Renard v. Renard (1956), 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278. Page 811 'The effect of the majority opinion is to abandon the 'abuse of discretion' standard as the rule of appellate rev......
-
Marshall v. Reeves, No. 2--273A50
...(1970), 254 Ind. 77, 257 N.E.2d 827; Brickley v. Brickley (1965), 247 Ind. 201, 210 N.E.2d 850, 211 N.E.2d 183; Renard v. Renard (1956), 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278; Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269, 102 N.E.2d 499. In our opinion it is in the best interests of the child that ......
-
K. B. v. S. B., No. 1-1279A369
...for a modification of visitation rights, DuFour v. DuFour, (1971) 149 Ind.App. 404, 273 N.E.2d 102; Page 753 Renard v. Renard, (1956) 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278, as it was necessary for a modification of custody. Huston v. Huston, (1971) 256 Ind. 110, 267 N.E.2d 170. S.B. contends tha......
-
Dufour v. Dufour, No. 1170A197
...permanent custody of the children, it has been held that the same rule is applicable to both types of cases. Renard v. Renard (1956), 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278. The rule to which we refer has been consistently followed by the courts of this state, and was followed in Adams v. Purtleb......
-
Marshall v. Reeves, No. 674S112
...v. Hall (1962), 134 Ind.App. 256, 185 N.E.2d 542; Gatchel v. Gatchel (1961), 132 Ind.App. 56, 175 N.E.2d 887; Renard v. Renard (1956), 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278. Page 811 'The effect of the majority opinion is to abandon the 'abuse of discretion' standard as the rule of appellate rev......
-
Marshall v. Reeves, No. 2--273A50
...(1970), 254 Ind. 77, 257 N.E.2d 827; Brickley v. Brickley (1965), 247 Ind. 201, 210 N.E.2d 850, 211 N.E.2d 183; Renard v. Renard (1956), 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278; Adams v. Purtlebaugh (1951), 230 Ind. 269, 102 N.E.2d 499. In our opinion it is in the best interests of the child that ......
-
K. B. v. S. B., No. 1-1279A369
...for a modification of visitation rights, DuFour v. DuFour, (1971) 149 Ind.App. 404, 273 N.E.2d 102; Page 753 Renard v. Renard, (1956) 126 Ind.App. 245, 132 N.E.2d 278, as it was necessary for a modification of custody. Huston v. Huston, (1971) 256 Ind. 110, 267 N.E.2d 170. S.B. contends tha......