Sheridan v. Sheridan
Decision Date | 17 July 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 3471.,3471. |
Citation | 202 A.2d 653 |
Parties | Nancy Gillis SHERIDAN, Appellant, v. Gregory T. SHERIDAN, Appellee. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Mark B. Sandground, Washington, D. C., with whom Dennis J. Tuchler, Washington, D. C., and Amram, Hahn & Sundlun, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and QUINN and MYERS, Associate Judges.
The parties to this action, husband and wife, were married in 1959, and lived in near-by Virginia and Maryland until their separation in 1963.1 Two children were born of the marriage. After the separation the wife and children went to New York, her former residence, and are now living there. The husband is now residing in the District of Columbia, which is and has been his place of employment. About five months after the separation this action was brought by the wife, seeking separate maintenance and support for herself and the children. The court denied any relief and this appeal followed.
We first consider the refusal of the trial court to award any support for the children. The trial court's refusal was based upon its interpretation of the decision of this court in Schiller v. Schiller, D.C.App., 194 A.2d 665 (1963). In that case the father, mother and children were all residents of
Maryland. The mother brought suit in the District of Columbia for separate maintenance, custody of the children and support for them. The trial court denied any relief and we affirmed. In affirming the denial of custody we said:
In affirming the denial of support for the children, we said:
"* * * the court had no jurisdiction to award support as it had rightfully declined to commit the children to her care, a condition precedent to an award for support under Sec. 16-415."2 194 A.2d 668.
From our decision in Schiller, the trial court reasoned:"Well, under the Schiller Case I have no jurisdiction to award custody and under the Schiller Case I have no right to award maintenance for the children because maintenance accompanies custody."
The trial court's reasoning was erroneous. The question of custody was not in issue. In her complant the wife alleged she had custody of the children, and the husband admitted that fact in his answer and did not question her right to custody. In argument to the court counsel for the husband stated: It is clear that the mother had custody, the father was not seeking custody, and no issue of custody was made or tried. The question of the court's jurisdiction to award custody was not before the trial court and is not before us.
From its gratuitous ruling that it had no jurisdiction to award custody, the trial court concluded that our ruling in Schiller prevented it from awarding support for the children. The ruling in Schiller has no application here. In Schiller custody was in issue, but no award of custody was made, and that issue was left to the Maryland courts. Naturally, where custody is in issue, no award of support for the children should be made to the mother until she is first awarded custody.
Here, where actual custody is in the mother and the father is not disputing her right to custody there is nothing in Code Section 16-415 which prevents the court from awarding support money for the children. The duty of a father to support his minor children was not created by the statute, and the trial court, with exclusive jurisdiction over actions for support of minor children, clearly had jurisdiction to award support in this case. It was error not to award support for the children. In fairness to the father, it should be noted that throughout the trial his position was that the children were entitled to support from him and that the only question in this respect was determination of the amount in view of the children's needs and his ability to pay.
We now turn to the trial court's denial of maintenance to the wife. The husband resisted this claim on the ground that she had left him without reason or justification. And, although both parties testified in detail to the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the separation, the trial court, disregarding its own rules, made no finding on this vital issue.3 The court's reasoning for denying maintenance was expressed in this manner:
As the court did consider making an award of maintenance, we must assume that it impliedly, though not expressly, found that the wife was justified in living apart from her husband and denied maintenance solely on the ground that the wife was earning enough to support herself. The wife's financial resources or earnings may be taken into consideration in making an award of maintenance, and where her resources are so substantial as to adequately supply all her needs, maintenance may be denied.4 But a wife should not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamel v, Hamel
...paying job are immaterial to whether a material change in the circumstances of the parties has already occurred. Cf. Sheridan v. Sheridan, 202 A.2d 653, 655 (D.C. 1964) (reversing original order of support denying alimony where wife is earning sufficient money to enable her to live); DeSipi......
-
Skiff v. Skiff
...of maintenance, if any, which will be required of a husband. McEachnie v. McEachnie, D.C.App., 216 A.2d 169 (1966); Sheridan v. Sheridan, D.C.App., 202 A.2d 653, 655 (1964); Payton v. Payton, D.C.App., 187 A.2d 899 (1963). However, when all the relevant and material factors are considered u......
-
Sheridan v. Sheridan
...between these parties have been a long and drawn-out process. A "past history" of the litigation can be found in Sheridan v. Sheridan, D.C.App., 202 A.2d 653 (1964). In that case, we held that the trial court had jurisdiction to award support for the two minor children when custody was not ......
-
Craig v. Craig, 6781.
...is in issue, no award of support for the children should be made to the mother until she is first awarded custody. [Sheridan v. Sheridan, D.C.App., 202 A.2d 653, 655 (1964).]5 Additionally, when appellant's second motion for custody was denied, the trial court explicitly held that: "With re......