Thomason v. Thomason
| Citation | 53 Ala.App. 206,298 So.2d 627 |
| Parties | Lewis E. THOMASON v. Ande H. THOMASON (Sims). Civ. 374. |
| Decision Date | 07 August 1974 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Skinner, Large & Corley, and Thomas L. Foster, Birmingham, for appellant.
Corretti, Newsom & Rogers, Birmingham, for appellee.
The parties were divorced on February 22, 1971, and an agreement, which was made by them, was ratified and made a part of the final decree. By the agreement appellee, Ande H. Thomason, was given custody of the two minor children of the marriage and appellant, Lewis E. Thomason, was to pay $125 per month as child support.
On July 8, 1971, appellee filed a petition for contempt and rule nisi alleging that appellant was in arrears in child support payments in the amount of $250 and that he had failed to pay certain medical expenses for one of the children as required by the divorce decree. Appellant answered and filed a cross petition for modification requesting custody of the children and an order requiring appellee to pay $135 per month as a contribution to support. Appellee also petitioned the court to modify the decree by increasing the amount of child support.
A decree of modification was rendered on November 14, 1973. This decree placed the children in the custody of appellant subject to reasonable visitation rights of the mother, relieved appellant of all support payments to appellee, and declared that there was no arrearage in prior support payments.
The decree contained the following:
Appellant makes one assignment of error--that being that the trial court erred in its conclusion that it cannot order a woman who is financially able to contribute even partially to the support and maintenance of her minor children who are in the custody of their father because this is a denial to the father and to the children of equal protection of the law and due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
At appellee's request, the transcript of the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mattingly v. Cummings
...has the primary and continuous duty to support and maintain his minor children reasonably according to his means. Thomason v. Thomason, 53 Ala.App. 206, 298 So.2d 627 (1974); Brock v. Brock, 281 Ala. 525, 205 So.2d 903 (1967); Stovall v. Johnson, 17 Ala. 14 (1849). This continuing obligatio......
-
Womble v. Womble
...Plaintiff is to be greatly commended for having performed so well from the age of 20. Appellee cites our case of Thomason v. Thomason, 53 Ala.App. 206, 298 So.2d 627, and indicates that it supports the balancing of abilities of the mother and father to furnish support as the court did in it......
-
Young v. Young
...mother should assist in supporting the two children. We concur and reaffirm that principle of law as stated in Thomason v. Thomason, 53 Ala. App. 206, 298 So. 2d 627 (1974) as follows:" ‘However, if the evidence in a case indicates such primary responsibility is incapable of being performed......
-
Tubb v. Middlebrooks
...Womble v. Womble, 56 Ala.App. 318, 321 So.2d 660 (1975), Cert. denied, 295 Ala. 429, 321 So.2d 664 (1975); Thomason v. Thomason, 53 Ala.App. 206, 298 So.2d 627 (1974); Brock v. Brock, 281 Ala. 525, 205 So.2d 903 In view of the decisions of our supreme court, the presence in this case of an ......