Taylor v. Taylor
| Citation | 42 S.W.2d 455 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 1057.,1057. |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. TAYLOR et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
H. S. Beard, John B. McNamara, and J. W. Spivey, all of Waco, for plaintiff in error.
Poage & Neff, of Waco, for defendants in error.
This was a suit by C. N. Taylor against his older children, W. E. Taylor, Beerman Taylor, and Genevieve Taylor, for a writ of habeas corpus to regain the custody of plaintiff's two minor children, Willard Taylor and Grace Taylor. All of the defendants and the two minor children involved herein are the children of the plaintiff and his first wife. The plaintiff's first wife died in 1928. He remarried in the early part of 1929. After the plaintiff's second marriage, the older children, the defendants herein, withdrew from plaintiff's home and established a home of their own. The two younger children, the minors involved herein, went to live with the older children. In 1929 the plaintiff filed a suit in the Nineteenth district court of McLennan county to restrain the defendants herein from interfering with his custody of the minor children. The defendants herein filed a cross-action in that suit, praying for the custody of the other minors, and upon a trial thereof the minors were awarded to the custody of the older children. There was no appeal from that judgment. In January, 1930, the plaintiff filed this suit in the Seventy-Fourth district court to regain the custody of the minors. Upon a trial of the case before the court the plaintiff was denied a recovery. He has sued out a writ of error to this court.
Ordinarily where the custody of minor children is involved, the best interest of the children is the paramount issue. Dunn v. Jackson (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 351; Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S. W. 281; Davis v. Sears (Tex. Com. App.) 35 S.W.(2d) 99, par. 12.
The presumption is that the best interest of the children will be subserved by awarding them to the natural parent, but this is a rebuttable presumption, and it is not necessary that the respondents prove that the natural parent is disqualified by immorality or misfortune. Dunn v. Jackson (Tex. Com. App.) 231 S. W. 351.
The question as to which of the two homes will best promote the interest of the minors is a question of fact. The authority and discretion to weigh the testimony and to determine where the best interest of the minors will be subserved is vested in the trial court, and the appellate court should not disturb the judgment of the trial court unless it is so contrary to the great preponderance of the testimony as to reveal an abuse of that discretion. Kendall v. Williams (Tex. Civ. App.) 233 S. W. 296, par. 1; Bemus v. Bemus, 63 Tex. Civ. App. 148, 133 S. W. 503, par. 1; Foster v. Foster (Tex. Civ. App.) 230 S. W. 1064, par. 4; Cecacci v. Martelli (Tex. Civ. App.) 235 S. W. 951, par. 3; Davis v. Sears (Tex. Com. App.) 35 S.W.(2d) 99; Tunnell v. Reeves (Tex. Com. App.) 35 S.W.(2d) 707, par. 6.
It appears from the evidence that Genevieve Taylor, one of the defendants herein, is now 22 years of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re C.J.C.
...best to raise, nurture, and educate the child.").34 Taylor v. Meek , 154 Tex. 305, 276 S.W.2d 787, 790 (1955).35 Id. (quoting Taylor v. Taylor , 42 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. App.—Waco 1931, no writ) ).36 In re V.L.K. , 24 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. 2000) (citing Lewelling v. Lewelling , 796 S.W.2d 1......
-
Taylor v. Meek
...Tex.Com.App., 1931, 37 S.W.2d 731; Sawyer v. Bezner, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 19, writ of error refused, n. r. e.; Taylor v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 1931, 42 S.W.2d 455, no writ history; Robinson v. Wampler, Tex.Civ.App., 1947, 202 S.W.2d 500, no writ history; Miller v. Banks, Tex.Civ.App., 1......
-
Rosson v. De Arman, 7118
...may have in an original custody action, it cannot control a suit to change custody. In Taylor v. Taylor, supra (Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 455, 456), the court "The presumption is that the best interests of the children will be subserved by awarding them to the natural parent, but this is a re......
-
Trotter v. Pollan
...person.' 31 Tex.Jur., sec. 15, p. 1292. In other words, the presumption is prima facie only, i. e., a rebuttable one. Taylor v. Taylor, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 455; Matthews v. Whittle, supra; Silva v. Aranda, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 333; Ex parte Cahill, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W.2d Turning t......