Sinclair v. Sinclair

• Citation: 204 Kan. 240,461 P.2d 750
• Decision Date: 06 December 1969
• Docket Number: No. 45461,45461
• Parties: Hazel Marie SINCLAIR, Appellant, .v Robert Eugene SINCLAIR, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Page 750

461 P.2d 750

204 Kan. 240

Hazel Marie SINCLAIR, Appellant .v Robert Eugene SINCLAIR, Appellee.

No. 45461.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Dec. 6, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where there is substantial, competent evidence to support a judgment of the trial court granting a party a divorce, the judgment will not be disturbed on appellate review.

2. The religious zeal of a spouse may be carried to such lengths that domestic harmony is completely disrupted and the legitimate ends of matrimony destroyed, with the result that the life of the complaining spouse is rendered intolerable. Such conduct characterizes behavior amounting to extreme cruelty and also may constitute gross neglect of duty within the purview of our divorce statute (K.S.A. 60-1601, as amended).

3. In a divorce action the division of property and allowance of alimony rests within the sound discretion of the trial court whose judgment will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion.

4. The paramount consideration of the court in custody cases between parents is the welfare and best interests of the children. In the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion the trial court's determination of custody will be upheld on appeal.

5. The record is examined in a divorce action where the wife became so obsessed with her religious beliefs and activities as a Jehovah's Witness that her conduct competely disrupted family life and she neglected her duties as a wife and mother, and it is held, the trial court did not err in (1) granting the husband a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty; (2) the division of property and alimony award; and (3) awarding custody of the minor children to the husband.

Murvyl M. Sullinger, Pittsburg, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

C. R. Stauffacher, Columbus, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

O'CONNOR, Justice.

After a marriage spanning slightly over twenty years, Robert Eugene Sinclair was granted a divorce from his wife Hazel on February 21, 1968. Custody of their two children-Gary and David, ages eighteen and thirteen-was granted to the father. Certain property was set over to each of the parties, and Robert was ordered to pay Hazel the sum of $3,000.

Hazel has appealed and contends the district court erred in: (1) granting a divorce to Robert on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty, (2) the division of property and alimony award, and (3) awarding custody of the boys to their father.

The marriage was reasonably tranquil until 1966 when Hazel became interested in the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and began studying the Bible. As a result her interest in her husband and children gradually waned to the point where she told Robert and the boys her religion meant more to her than her family or anything else. Finally, after Robert told her he would not 'live with the religion' any longer, Hazel departed the home in February 1967. Following a short sojourn to Montana, she returned to Kansas and lived apart from her family. Hazel maintained little or no contact with them and did not so much as attend Gary's graduation exercises in June 1967.

On August 31, 1967, Hazel instituted an action for separate maintenance in which Robert filed a cross-petition for divorce. When the case came on for trial Hazel withdrew her petition and the case was heard on the cross-petition. Robert was granted a divorce on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty about which Hazel now complains on the apparent basis there was no evidence of marital delinquency against her. She contends the evidence all related to acts of indignity and abuse on the part of her husband. The essence of her argument, as we view it, is that we should reweigh the evidence and arrive at a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court. This we decline to do. The trial judge had the duty of determining the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of the witnesses. Our task on appellate review is to examine the record and ascertain whether his findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence. If so, the findings will not be disturbed. (Cool v. Cool, 203 Kan. 749, 457 P.2d 60; Haynes v. Haynes, 202 Kan. 83, 446 P.2d 749.)

According to Robert, when his wife first started studying to be a Jehovah's Witness he 'figured any religion was a good religion as long as they believe in God,' but then she started asking him if he 'would leave money to the clan if she were to die,' and stated that 'she would let her children die for lack of a blood transfusion and that the world was coming to an end in 1975.' Hazel, in her husband's opinion, had undergone a complete personality change: her religion came before everything, she became inattentive to the children and lost interest in their school activities, she no longer believed in Christmas and refused to take part in any of the season's festivities, and she ceased to prepare regular meals for the family as she had done before. By the testimony of Robert, the two boys, and Hazel's own sister, the record leaves no doubt that Hazel had become so obsessed with her religious beliefs and activities that she completely neglected her duties as a wife and mother, and as a result, she and her husband could no longer live together.

The religious zeal of a spouse may be carried to such lengths that domestic harmony is completely disrupted and the legitimate ends of matrimony destroyed, with the result that the life of the complaining spouse is rendered intolerable. (Mertens v. Mertens, 38 Wash.2d 55, 227 P.2d 724; Smith v. Smith, 61 Ariz. 373, 149 P.2d 683; Golden v. Arons, 36 N.J.Super. 371, 115 A.2d 639; Krauss v. Krauss, 163 La. 218, 111 So. 683, 58 A.L.R. 457; Anno. 25 A.L.R.2d 930, § 2). Such a course of conduct, we believe, characterizes behavior amounting to extreme cruelty within the purview of our divorce statute. (K.S.A. 60-1601, as amended; Haynes v. Haynes, supra; Saint v. Saint, 196 Kan. 330, 411 P.2d 683; Preston v. Preston, 193 Kan. 379, 394 P.2d 43.) Likewise, under the circumstances disclosed in this record, such conduct may constitute gross neglect of duty. (Haynes v. Haynes, supra; Kelso v. Kelso, 182 Kan. 665, 324 P.2d 165.) The record discloses ample evidence to support the action of the district court in granting a divorce to Robert.

Hazel also complains the lower court abused its discretion in the division of property and allowance of alimony.

Robert was awarded as his separate property the residence of the parties for which they paid $10,000 and to which they added a shop at a cost of approximately $3,000, subject to a mortgage of about $5,000; the household goods and furnishings; the business and inventory; a 1959 Ford; and a 1964 Chrysler on which there was an...