Sibley v. Sibley
| Decision Date | 12 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | 31. |
| Parties | SIBLEY v. SIBLEY. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City; Herman M. Moser Judge.
Suit by Harry D. Sibley against DeVane Sibley for custody of Harry D Sibley, Jr., a minor. From an order awarding custody of the minor to plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Walter V. Harrison, of Baltimore, for appellant.
Charles W. Main, of Baltimore, for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
This is an appeal by DeVane Sibley, the appellant, from an order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City awarding the custody of the grandchild of the appellant, Harry D. Sibley, Junior, an infant eight years of age, subject to further order of the Court, to the father of the infant, Harry D. Sibley, Senior, the appellee, who lived at Texarkana, Texas.
The infant was born October 23rd, 1937. His parents separated when he was eight months of age and he was brought by the appellee into the home of the grandparents in Baltimore where he lived until the passage of the order here appealed from. The father, the appellee, lived in the same home until he entered the Armed Forces of the United States in November, 1942. He was discharged from the Army on February 8, 1946. During that period he made an allotment of $42.00 a month for the support of the child in the home of its grandparents.
The appellee, Harry D. Sibley, Senior, born March 23, 1917, completed two and one half years in high school prior to his withdrawal at the request of the school authorities. From that time until his entrance into the Armed Forces of the United States he held several positions. He was married in November, 1935, to one Rose Matthews, who obtained a divorce from him in 1939 on the grounds of adultery. At the time of this divorce the guardianship and custody of Harry D. Sibley, Junior, was awarded to the appellant, DeVane Sibley, and Ruth Sibley, his wife, the grandparents of the child, at the request of the parents. The support was chargeable to the father of the infant with the right of both parents to see the child at all reasonable times subject to further order of the Court. The report of the probation officer in this case states that, although the appellee was fined once on an assault charge, his conduct has been generally good and he appears to be sincere, intelligent, and sober. At the time of the hearing in this case he had about $1,900.00 in bank, $1,200.00 in war bonds, and the offer of a position. While in the Army he married on June 17, 1944, Miss Thelma Smith, 26 years of age and not formerly married, of Texarkana, Texas, a secretary who continued to work until March 15, 1946. She wants the child in her home and says that she will try to be a mother to him. They have no other children. According to the report of the probation officer, she is neat in her dress, is willing to assume the obligation of caring for the child, is in good health, and active in Sunday School work and has ability to deal with young people. At the time of the hearing in this case the appellee and his wife, Thelma Sibley, lived in Texarkana, Texas, where they had an apartment. They still live there.
The mother of the child, Rose M. Sibley, has remarried and has three other children. According to the report of the grandmother of the child, she has seen him only twice in the period of seven years, the last time being approximately five years ago.
The appellant, the grandfather, is an electrical contractor, 55 years of age, and has always earned an amount sufficient to meet his business and personal expenses. He has a comfortable home. He is industrious, honest, courteous, and aggressive, and is the master of his home. He and his wife have had six children. However, according to the report of the probation officer, he is a disciplinarian and his wife and some of the children, including the appellee here, claim that he is selfish, unreasonable and stubborn. He is very fond of the infant. He says that although his wife has said that she will leave him, if she does so and custody is awarded to him he will place the boy in a school such as McDonogh or St. Paul School. He has been in the habit of taking this infant to his farm in Pennsylvania very often over the weekends and there is some dispute in the family about the child not attending Sunday School on that account. He does not want his son to have custody of the child because he says he has no confidence in him due to his experience with his son in early years.
The grandmother, Ruth Sibley, testified that she is 53 years of age and she and her husband have had custody of the infant since he was eight months of age. She has had the responsibility of the child in the daytime, although her husband for quite a long time gave the child...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Travers v. Fogarty
-
Holcomb v. Holcomb
...fact and determination as to credibility of the witnesses. The reason for this was set forth by Judge Collins in Sibley v. Sibley, 187 Md. 358, 362, 50 A.2d 128, 130 (1946), and cited with approval in Daubert v. Daubert, 239 Md. 303, 211 A.2d 323 'We see none of the parties. The Chancellor ......
-
Orndoff v. Orndoff
...cannot say that his decision was clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 886 a. See Daubert v. Daubert, 239 Md. 303, 211 A.2d 323; Sibley v. Sibley, 187 Md. 358, 50 A.2d 128. The trial court found that the appellee was not unfit to have custody of her child and that the record was devoid of any ev......