Shores v. Shores
| Decision Date | 19 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 69--134 |
| Citation | 119 Ill.App.2d 85,255 N.E.2d 214 |
| Parties | Marilyn Deener SHORES, Plaintiff-Deceased, v. Raymond E. SHORES, Defendant-Appellant, and Edward Deener, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Canfield, Canfield, Franks, Wylde & Hoad, Rockford, for appellant.
Richard L. Caldwell, John B. Roe, Oregon, for appellee.
Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in 1965 and the decree granted the care, custody, control and education of the minor children, Linda, Cindy, Carla and Janet, to the plaintiff and the defendant was ordered to pay child support. Defendant, Raymond E. Shores, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Ogle County granting custody of his two minor children to their uncle, Edward Deener, and ordering Shores to pay child support to Deener. He filed his petition on May 21, 1969, to modify the decree of divorce, after the plaintiff and a minor daughter, Carla, were killed in an automobile accident, alleging substantial changes in circumstances to justify modification; that it would be in the best interests of the minor children, Cindy and Janet, that he be awarded custody and granted leave to take them to his Florida domicile; and, that his obligation to pay support under the decree cease. A married minor child, Linda Guzzardo, filed a petition for custody of the children on the same day. On June 4, Edward Deener, also filed a separate petition for custody of the children, and the petitions were consolidated for hearing. The court granted custody to the uncle, Edward Deener, who is married.
Court records indicate that no support payments were made from March 25, 1965, to October 17, 1968. The plaintiff was forced to file a reciprocal non-support action. The defendant admitted he was behind in child support payments, but had no idea how much. He did not see Janet for 4 1/2 years. For a year and a half during that period, Linda and Cindy resided with the defendant and his present wife and her three children in Florida. Testimony of the children at the hearing indicated that they were not happy in Florida; that they felt they had been imposed upon while living there and Cindy considered herself primarily a maid and baby sitter; that Linda was given liquor to drink by her father and became involved with the Juvenile Court because of drinking, but had no problems of that nature while residing with her mother; that Cindy had problems in school; that they felt their father was 'mean' and did a considerable amount of drinking; and, that they preferred to live with their sister or uncle.
Appellant contends that there was no preponderance or adequate evidence to establish that he was not a fit person to have custody of his children or to grant custody of his minor children to a third party; that a child's preference as to custody standing alone cannot be determinative; further, that leave of court to Edward Deener to intervene in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doggett v. Doggett
...of the trial judge is manifestly against the weight of the evidence. Brown v. Zimmerman, 18 Ill.2d 94, 163 N.E.2d 518; Shores v. Shores, 119 Ill.App.2d 85, 225 N.E.2d 214. Underlying this rule is the recognition that, especially where the testimony is contradictory, the trial judge as the t......
-
Lutz v. Lutz
...that the findings of a trial judge will not be disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. Shores v. Shores, 119 Ill.App.2d 85, 88, 255 N.E.2d 214 (1970). The judge's evaluation of testimony concerning petitioner's abuse of Marian was that it was apparent to him that the r......
-
Comiskey v. Comiskey
...parties and was limited to the time period before July of 1973. Defendant denied that he drank to excess. See Shores v. Shores (1970), 119 Ill.App.2d 85, 87-88, 255 N.E.2d 214, leave to appeal denied, 43 Ill.2d The decision of cases involving child custody places a grave duty upon the court......
-
Cave v. Cave
...Ill.App.2d 363, 247 N.E.2d 818, but such discretion is a judicial one and is not unlimited and is subjuct to review. Shores v. Shores, 119 Ill.App.2d 85, 255 N.E.2d 214; Mikrut v. Mikrut, 113 Ill.App.2d 446, 251 N.E.2d 84. Subsequent marriages are a factor to consider as a change in circums......