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

Page 187

123 N.W.2d 187

266 Minn. 250

Coralyn STANFORD, Appellant, v. John STANFORD, Respondent.

No. 38974.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 9, 1963.

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.

THOMAS GALLAGHER, Justice.

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:

"2. That defendant be, and hereby is, awarded the sole and exclusive care, custody and control of the minor child of the parties under the supervision of the Hennepin County Department of Court Services.

"3. That the plaintiff shall have the right of visitation with the said child from 1:00 to 8:00 p.m. on the first and second Sundays and from 5:30 p.m. Friday to 8:00 p.m. Sunday on the third week end of each month from September to June, away from the home of the defendant; on the second and fourth week ends during the months of July and August the plaintiff shall have the right to have the child with her away from the home of the defendant from 4:00 p.m. on Friday to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. The plaintiff may have the child with her on Christmas Eve of 1962 and on the afternoon of Christmas Day in 1963 and such visitation shall continue on alternate years in that manner until the further order of this court; that the plaintiff shall have the duty to notify the defendant 24 hours prior to the time of visitation if for any reason she will not avail herself of the opportunity for visitation."

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 love, care, attention, and companionship bestowed upon and given to children of tender years by mothers are almost indispensable ingredients in the proper development of the character and personalities of children. It is for this reason that in most cases where circumstances have made it impossible for the family to remain as a unit that the custody of young children is paramount to all other considerations, and custody should be removed from the mother and placed in the father or elsewhere only when the welfare of the children demands such removal and, regretfully, the Court has concluded that such circumstance exists here.

'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.

'The report also shows that in late 1961 or early 1962 that Coralyn Stanford's attitude toward the child, toward her home and toward her person became completely changed. Whether this change came about because of the head injury which resulted in a brief hospitalization in November of 1961, or by emotional pressures brought on by the schism developing and the difficulties arising between the plaintiff and her mother or by the excessive use of alcoholic beverages on the part of the plaintiff, or by a combination of two or more of these factors, is important only insofar as a mode of treatment or correction may be found. What is important here is the effect of the change and that effect has been, in the opinion of the Court, to render the plaintiff not a proper person to have the care and custody of the child and to render the home of the plaintiff unsuitable as the home of the child, and to make the continued care and custody of the child by the plaintiff detrimental to the child's welfare. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that it is necessary for the proper welfare of the child that he be removed from the care and custody of the plaintiff and placed in the care and custody of the father, the defendant here, who has demonstrated his love and affection for the child and who has a good home a which this child may live and enjoy a family life.'

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...