Stickler v. Stickler
| Decision Date | 24 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 49874 |
| Citation | 57 Ill.App.2d 286,206 N.E.2d 720 |
| Parties | Eileen STICKLER, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. Paul STICKLER, Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Paul Stickler, defendant-counter-plaintiff-appellant, pro se.
Bellows, Bellows & Magidson, Chicago, for plaintiff-counter-defendant-appellee.
The parties to this suit were divorced by decree entered December 4, 1963 on the defendant's counter-complaint. Custody of their two minor children was awarded to the defendant father, pursuant to an agreement between the parties which was incorporated into the decree. On petition of the plaintiff, an order was entered modifying the decree by changing the custody of the daughter, Meta, 1 age 16, from the father to the mother. It is from this order that defendant fendant has appealed.
The agreement entered into by the parties in anticipation of the divorce decree contained a provision to the effect that the children had been living with their father, that they were of a suitable age to exercise their discretion concerning the parent with whom they would reside, and that the father should have their custody, subject, of course, to order of court. Thus, in the first instance the children apparently chose their father's custody, but it appears from the plaintiff's petition that Meta would now prefer to live with her mother. Plaintiff contends that the decretal award of custody, being based on the parties' agreement, was conditional, and subject to change upon expression of Meta's preference at any time in the future. A reading of the agreement and the dispositional provisions of the decree, however, discloses no such conclusion by the court at that time, and does not substantiate such an interpretation of the decree at this time. The decree was clearly unconditional in its award of custody to the defendant.
When plaintiff's petition was filed Meta was residing with her mother in violation of the divorce decree, and a finding to that effect is included in the order appealed from. While the detailed facts attending her change in residence were apparently examined by the trial judge, we find ourselves unable to consider them because they have not been properly preserved in the record. Nevertheless, enough facts are found within the order itself to enable us to dispose of this case on the merits.
In the order from which this appeal has been taken, the trial judge found that both the father and the mother are fit and proper persons to have custody of Meta; that the father is financially able to support his daughter; that he has done so in the past and is willing to do so in the future; and that the daughter is willing to live with either her father or her mother, as the court might determine, but prefers now to live with her mother. By the express terms of the order, the sole change in circumstances which the court found to have occurred, and which it decided would warrant a change in custody, was the daughter's present desire to live with her mother.
The law in Illinois is well-established that our courts will not amend a child custody award unless there has been an actual change in circumstances occurring after entry of the decree, which change makes it apparent that the welfare of the child requires modification of the decree's custody provisions. Nye v. Nye, 411 Ill. 408, 105 N.E.2d 300. As stated by the court in Thomas v. Thomas, 233 Ill.App., 488 493: 'A decree fixing the custody of a child is final on the conditions then existing and should not be changed afterwards unless on altered conditions since the decree, or on material facts existing at the time of the decree but unknown to the court, and then only for the welfare of the child.' This quotation was cited with approval in Bulander v. Bulander, 23 Ill.App.2d 299, 303, 162 N.E.2d 585, where the court stated further that the changed conditions necessary are those which bear upon the fitness of the custodial parent.
We believe that the instant case presents the first occasion in Illinois that the courts have been called upon to decide whether a change in the child's preference is, in itself, a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant modification of the custody award. We are aware of the difficulty a trial judge has in making child custody decisions and we are hesitant to disagree with him in these matters. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that the welfare of a child will not be served best if a change in custody is granted solely upon the child's own change in preference.
A review of numerous cases on the subject indicates that the courts have been favorably disposed toward awarding custody to the mother where the child involved is of a tender age, e. g., Dunning v. Dunning, 14 Ill.App.2d 242, 144 N.E.2d 535. This is not the situation here, however, because Meta is approaching her last year of minority.
Equally apparent from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foshee v. Foshee
...14, 16 (Ky.Ct.App.1974); Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270, 247 N.E.2d 659, 299 N.Y.S.2d 842, 845 (1969); Stickler v. Stickler, 57 Ill.App.2d 286, 206 N.E.2d 720, 723 (1965); Oakes v. Oakes, 45 Ill.App.2d 387, 195 N.E.2d 840, 844 (1964); Baker v. Vidal, 363 S.W.2d 158, 159 (Tx.App.1962); Wi......
-
Ynclan v. The Honorable Paul K. Woodward
...14, 16 (Ky.Ct.App.1974); Lincoln v. Lincoln, 24 N.Y.2d 270, 247 N.E.2d 659, 299 N.Y.S.2d 842, 845 (1969); Stickler v. Stickler, 57 Ill.App.2d 286, 206 N.E.2d 720, 723 (1965); Oakes v. Oakes, 45 Ill.App.2d 387, 195 N.E.2d 840, 844 (1964); Baker v. Vidal, 363 S.W.2d 158, 159 (Tx.Civ.App.1962)......
-
Marshall v. Stefanides
...History of the World, Vol. 4, 295-296 (1908).3 Oakes v. Oakes, 45 Ill.App.2d 387, 195 N.E.2d 840 (1964); Stickler v. Stickler, 57 Ill.App.2d 286, 206 N.E.2d 720 (1965); Currier v. Currier, 271 Minn. 369, 136 N.W.2d 55 (1965); Schwartz v. Schwartz, 382 S.W.2d 851 (Ky.1964). Contra, Lincoln v......
-
Haase v. Haase
...such evidence in the majority of jurisdictions is to obtain the child's views in an in camera interview. See Stickler v. Stickler, 57 Ill.App.2d 286, 206 N.E.2d 720, 723 (1965). See generally Jones, Judicial Questioning of Children in Custody and Visitation Proceedings, 18 Fam. L.Q. 43 (198......