Stanford v. Stanford
Decision Date | 09 August 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 38974,38974 |
Citation | 123 N.W.2d 187,266 Minn. 250 |
Parties | Coralyn STANFORD, Appellant, v. John STANFORD, Respondent. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where reports of Department of Court Services, made pursuant to L.1961, c. 527, § 2(8), were received over plaintiff's objection as to their competency on issue involving custody of child of parties; where persons whose statements comprised such reports were not present to testify or submit to cross-examination with respect to statements made therein; and where court placed substantial reliance upon such reports in arriving at its decision that defendant have custody of child, Held such procedure to be in violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights of due process, and accordingly order appealed from is reversed and remanded for further proceedings wherein such reports shall not form any basis for the court's determination of custody issue, unless persons whose statements comprise such reports be present to testify, subject to cross-examination with reference thereto.
Sorensen & Sorensen, Minneapolis, and Herbert C. Davis, St. Louis Park, for appellant.
Samuel Saliterman, Leslie S. Shapiro, Minneapolis, for respondent.
Proceedings subsequent to a decree of divorce of the District Court of Anoka County involving custody of Donald Lee Stanford, 9-year-old son of the parties, whose custody was awarded to his mother, Coralyn Stanford, plaintiff herein, in the original decree, dated December 23, 1955. This appeal taken by her is from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, 1 dated December 17, 1962, wherein the decree, previously amended, was further modified so as to award custody of the child to his father, John Stanford. The order upon which the amended judgment and decree is based is in part as follows:
'Pursuant to an order of this court dated May 2, 1961, custody of the minor child of the parties hereto was awarded to the plaintiff under the supervision of the Department of Court Services.
'On July 20, 1962, the court on its own motion based upon information from the Department of Court Services ordered the parties before the court on August 9, 1962, for the purpose of reevaluation of the question of custody and further ordered the Department of Court Services to submit a progress report. Such report was submitted August 2, 1962.
'On August 9, 1962, the matter was continued to October 22, 1962, and the Department of Court Services was directed to continue their investigation and submit a further progress report. Such report was submitted October 22, 1962.
'Each of the reports was read by counsel for each of the parties and written objections were filed to each report by the plaintiff.
'On October 22, 1962, the matter was continued to November 14, 1962, and came on for hearing before the undersigned, presiding judgment of the Family Court Division, and testimony was taken and evidence presented that day and on December 6, 1962, and December 13, 1962, on which latter date the testimony was concluded, arguments of counsel were made and the matter submitted.
'NOW, THEREFORE, upon the reports of the Department of Court Services, the testimony adduced, the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel and all the files, records and proceedings herein,
'IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the amended Judgment and Decree entered herein on March 13, 1962, be and hereby are vacated and are modified and amended to read as follows:
In a memorandum attached to and made a part of such order the trial court said:
'* * * the Department of Court Services has had the continued supervision of the custody of the child here and a great many hours of effort, thought and analysis have been expended by experienced personnel of that Department that counsel and the Court could be informed of the facts of the environment and home conditions of the child.
'The record here clearly shows that for many years, and until late 1961 or early 1962, that Coralyn Stanford, the plaintiff here, was a good and devoted mother to Donald, the child of the parties to this action, and during that time provided him with the care, love, attention, and companionship necessary to the development of the child.
Plaintiff and defendant were married September 11, 1948, in Minneapolis. On October 31, 1953, a son, Donald Lee Stanford, was born to them. Since December 23, 1955, when the original decree of divorce awarding custody of Donald to plaintiff was entered, plaintiff has paid for practically all of Donald's support and maintenance. He was taken from her custody by defendant on December 29, 1962.
Subsequent to the divorce defendant, John Stanford, was married on April 23, 1958, to Shirley Warnke in Northwood, Iowa; and on December 23, 1961, a daughter was born to them of this marriage. In 1962 plaintiff was married to William Anderson and presently resides with him at 3957 France Avenue in Minneapolis. There are no issues of this marriage.
After the divorce plaintiff and her son first lived at the home of plaintiff's mother, Mrs. Leila Rendernick, in Minneapolis. After living there a short time, plaintiff and her mother purchased a home in Edina where they lived with Donald for a number of years. Discord developed between plaintiff and her mother so that ultimately the latter left this home to establish a residence of her own. Plaintiff then disposed of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. Tucker
...to cross-examine the makers of investigative reports upon which a court relies in determining child custody. Stanford v. Stanford, 266 Minn. 250, 123 N.W.2d 187 (1963); Malone v. Malone, 591 P.2d 296 (Okla.1979). In Phillips v. Phillips, 24 W.Va. 591 (1884), this Court recognized the right ......
-
S--M--W--, In re
...agency's conduct it will refuse to divulge. * * * 'An opportunity to put it in evidence should have been allowed.' In Stanford v. Stanford, 266 Minn. 250, 123 N.W.2d 187, the court 'We do not condemn the practice of using court agencies to make investigations and reports on custody question......
-
In re S.A.
...as witnesses or otherwise responding.' In re Welfare of D.J.N., 568 N.W.2d 170, 175 (Minn.App.1977) (citing Stanford v. Stanford, 266 Minn. 250, 258, 123 N.W.2d 187, 192-93 (1963)). The record establishes that mother was aware before trial that the CFASD intended to offer the exhibits. She ......
-
Anderson v. Anderson, 10934
...competent evidence produced at a hearing which may be tested by cross-examination and effectively reviewed on appeal. Stanford v. Stanford, 266 Minn. 250, 123 N.W.2d 187 and McGuire v. McGuire, Fla.App., 140 So.2d In Yager v. Yager, 83 S.D. 315, 159 N.W.2d 125, we held: 'Neither parent is e......