Rutledge v. Harris, 4920.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 4920.,4920. |
| Citation | 263 A.2d 256 |
| Parties | Azlee RUTLEDGE, Appellant, v. Robert L. HARRIS, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and KERN and NEBEKER, Associate Judges.
This appeal, brought by the maternal grandmother of three female children, is from an award of custody of the children to their father. We reverse the custody order and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion. In so doing, we do not wish to be understood as altering or enlarging our traditionally limited scope of review of such delicate decisions. We are prompted to take this action because the trial judge, in finding against the grandmother, stated that she "greatly desires a continuation of [an earlier] support order [entered against the father] for the sake of herself and children."1 A careful examination of the record fails to reveal any evidence to support the finding that the grandmother desired the payments for herself. Also, the trial judge viewed some relevant and highly significant evidence as having no legal impact to the issue of custody. We also note that the judgment, which contains the findings of fact and conclusions of law, was not entered on the record until two months after the date appearing therein. This is contrary to G.S.Dom.Rel. Rule 7. Moreover, the decision was apparently taken under advisement for five months before the date appearing on the judgment. On remand the trial judge remains free to exercise his judgment consistent with the established standard of what is in the best interest of the children.
The unique circumstances revealed by a review of the history of the principals in this case are significant. After the mother and father had separated in 1957 or 1958, she and the children lived with her mother — the children's grandmother. Thereafter, on September 5, 1962, the father was ordered to pay for support and maintenance of his family. On several occasions he fell substantially in arrears and was subject to contempt orders for his failures. Indeed, he is presently substantially in arrears on his obligation to support the children.
In late 1965, the mother and her children moved into living quarters adjacent to the grandmother and remained there until the death of the mother in May, 1966. Upon the mother's death, the children...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Ta.L.
...great importance of stability and continuity this court has recognized in evaluating the best interest of child. See Rutledge v. Harris , 263 A.2d 256, 257–58 (D.C. 1970) ("[A] stable and desired environment of long standing should not lightly be set aside.").While the expert testimony offe......
-
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald
...e.g., Albergottie v. James, 470 A.2d 266, 271-72 (D.C. 1983); Moore v. Moore, supra, 391 A.2d at 770-71 (D.C. 1978); Rutledge v. Harris, 263 A.2d 256, 257-58 (D.C. 1970). The judge, inter alia, found that the child had a close relationship with her father in an "appropriate, warm loving arr......
-
APPLICATION OF L.L., 94-FS-469
...J., concurring) (Baby Boy C.I). "[A] stable and desired environment of long standing should not lightly be set aside." Rutledge v. Harris, 263 A.2d 256, 257-58 (D.C. 1970).20 In Bazemore v. Davis, 394 A.2d 1377 (D.C. 1978), we stated at the time of the trial, the child, then over four years......
-
PROST v. GREENE
...custody following separation are very different from this one. The "unique circumstances" causing the remand in Rutledge v. Harris, 263 A.2d 256 (D.C. 1970), were that "the father's contact with the children was . . . permeated with a history of mutual indifference" and that none of the chi......