Schuyler v. Haggart
| Decision Date | 09 November 1960 |
| Citation | 356 P.2d 955,224 Or. 530 |
| Parties | Nelda Marie SCHUYLER, Appellant, v. Earl William HAGGART, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Floyd D. Hamilton, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Ray F. Merry, Portland.
Clarence X. Bollenback, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Ruth Rose Richardson, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, C. J., and ROSSMAN, SLOAN, GOODWIN and KING, JJ.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from an order which modified a decree of divorce by taking custody of the minor child of the parties from the plaintiff and giving it to the defendant, Earl William Haggart.
The plaintiff and defendant were married on November 22, 1948. One child, Kathleen Louise Haggart, now eleven years of age, was born of said marriage.
The parties were divorced in Multnomah county by a decree entered February 17, 1950, which gave plaintiff a divorce, custody of Kathleen and required defendant to pay $30 per month for the support of said child. Subsequent to that decree the plaintiff was remarried and is again divorced. The defendant was remarried, divorced and has again remarried.
Plaintiff's second marriage was to Raymond C. Schuyler. Two children were born of this marriage. In 1958 Schuyler filed a suit for divorce against plaintiff. On July 8, 1958, a decree was entered granting Mrs. Schuyler a divorce and custody of said children. The case was tried by the Honorable Virgil Langtry, circuit judge. During the trial of that case Mrs. Schuyler consented to an independent investigation by the court regarding the future care and custody of the two Schuyler children. The decree ordered that said investigation should be made. The report of the investigation evidently contained information reflecting adversely on Mrs. Schuyler's fitness to have custody of her children. The record does not disclose what disposition was eventually made of the Schuyler children.
The report of the investigation in the Schuyler case caused Judge Langtry to write a letter to the attorneys of record in the case at bar, suggesting that something should be done to remove Kathleen from the custody of plaintiff. In response to this suggestion, the defendant, on February 4, 1959, filed a motion for an order requiring plaintiff to appear and show cause why the decree of divorce should not be modified by awarding custody of Kathleen to the defendant.
The motion for change of custody came on for hearing before Judge Langtry on March 19, 1959. At the outset of the hearing, Judge Langtry advised the parties and their attorneys that he would consider the report of the investigation in the Schuyler case in determining the motion to change the custody of Kathleen Haggart to defendant. Counsel for plaintiff read the report, made no objection to its consideration and declared that he would produce evidence to contradict the information contained therein. The hearing was postponed until May 18, 1960, to permit plaintiff to offer evidence to contradict the information contained in said report. Although the report of the investigation and the letter written by Judge Langtry are mentioned in the transcript, neither is part of the record on appeal.
At the close of the hearing, the trial judge, with the consent of the parties, held a private interview with Kathleen Haggart out of the presence of the parties and their attorneys. The interview was not reported and is not a part of the record before us.
If objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meader v. Meader
...review in custody cases where interviews with children in chambers were not made part of the trial court record. See Schuyler v. Haggart, 224 Or. 530, 356 P.2d 955 (1960) (review de novo of a change in custody from the mother to the father was waived where the trial court considered a repor......
-
Beelman v. Beelman
...hearing. There was, under the present state of the record, a private interview of one or more witnesses by the trial judge. Schuyler v. Haggart, Or., 356 P.2d 955. There is no record of a stipulation to proceed without a reporter. There is likewise no record of an objection or an exception ......
-
Lackey v. Lackey
...a record's being made of the interview. In Beelman v. Beelman, 227 Or. 556, 361 P.2d 663, 363 P.2d 561 (1961), and Schuyler v. Haggart, 224 Or. 530, 356 P.2d 955 (1960), the Supreme Court held that if the appellant in a divorce proceeding does not provide the appellate court with a transcri......
-
Chandler, In re
...record on appeal, whatever its form may have been. ORS 419.567(3)(b). There was no waiver of that right in this case. Schulyer v. Haggart, 1960, 224 Or. 530, 356 P.2d 955, and see Standards for Specialized Courts Dealing with Children, Children's Bureau, U. S. Department of Health, Educatio......