Trickey v. Trickey
| Citation | 106 N.E.2d 772,47 O.O. 481,158 Ohio St. 9 |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 32855,32855 |
| Parties | , 47 O.O. 481 TRICKEY v. TRICKEY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, in a divorce action, the Common Pleas Court enters an order concerning the custody of a child under ten years of age, that court has continuing jurisdiction with respect to custody of the child and if subsequently there is a change of conditions that court has the discretionary power to modify its previous order of custody to the extent determined by that court to be for the best interest of the child, including change of custody from one parent to the other.
2. On appeal on questions of law only from an order fixing the custody of a minor child, the Court of Appeals may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court as to what order of custody would be for the best interest of the child.
This case involves the custody of a child, Linda Lou Trickey, now five and one-half years of age. The decree determining custody was entered by the Common Pleas Court of Miami County. Appeal on questions of law was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals where the judgment of the Common Pleas Court was reversed on the ground of abuse of discretion, 105 N.E.2d 448.
The cause is in this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record. The facts are stated in the opinion.
Forrest L. Blankenship, Troy, for appellee.
John A. Benjamin, Cincinnati, for appellant.
The parties were married October 13, 1945, and the daughter, Linda Lou, was born August 3, 1946. The defendant, John C. Trickey, prior to the marriage had served seven years in the army, including the period of the second world war. Sometime after the birth of the child he re-enlisted.
On June 2, 1947, the wife, Effic Pauline Trickey, instituted an action for divorce in the Common Pleas Court of Miami County in which county both of the parties had resided for a number of years. The divorce case was heard in May 1948 before the Honorable Jacob T. Koenig, Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Auglaize County, sitting by assignment in Miami county. Both plaintiff and defendant testified as did many other witnesses. At that time the defendant was a private first class stationed at Fort Knox, Kentucky. The mother (plaintiff) was living in Tipp City, Miami county, near her parents and the child was being cared for largely by her parents. The parents of plaintiff were in court and at least one of them testified in the divorce case and the trial judge became acquainted with them and expressed respect for and confidence in them.
Upon the evidence, which was rather voluminous, the court on May 19, 1948, granted a divorce to the father, John C. Trickey, upon his cross-petition.
In connection with the decree of divorce the trial judge made an order with respect to the custody of the child. That order included the following:
'It is further ordered and decreed that the plaintiff shall have the care, custody and control of said minor child, Linda Lou Trickey, until further order of the court, subject to the supervision of the child's maternal grandparents.'
Right of visitation by the father was specified.
Subsequently, on application of one or the other of the parties for modification of the custody order, several hearings were had and at each hearing witnesses testified. All hearings were had before the same Common Pleas judge and all orders in the case were made by that judge.
At such hearing on June 6, 1949, it was shown that both parties had remarried, that the father had become a noncommissioned officer with increased pay, that he had living quarters near the army post and that the services of army doctors were available to his family, that the mother's then husband was employed, and that she had removed the child from the home of her parents and was caring for the child in the apartment occupied by hereself and her husband. Both the father's new wife and the mother's new husband appeared and testified at length.
As a result of that hearing the court on August 3, 1949, modified the custody order so as to provide for the child being with each parent for alternate periods of three months.
On December 8, 1949, after hearing at which it was shown that the father was then in Officers Candidate School in Fort Riley, Kansas, the order was changed and the mother was given custody for the six months during which the father was at Fort Riley. The order then provided: 'This case is continued until further order of the court.'
On April 28, 1950, a further hearing was held at which both parents testified at length. Among other facts it was shown that the father was then a commissioned officer and that the mother then had a child by her second marriage. The judge continued the cause to enable him to have an independent investigation made of the then existing home of each of the parents. The court's decision was entered on September 14, 1950. It awarded permanent custody to the father with specified privileges of visitation by the mother and provided that the mother should have the child during any periods during which the father might be in overseas service.
On October 4, 1950, a motion for vacation of the order of September 14 and for rehearing was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re K.W.
...of the parties and through independent investigation can not be conveyed to a reviewing court by printed record. Trickey v. Trickey , 158 Ohio St. 9, 13, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952).{¶ 30} Furthermore, unlike an ordinary civil proceeding in which a jury has no contact with the parties before a tr......
-
State v. Legg
...between the parent and child.” In re Sappington, 123 Ohio App.3d 448, 453–454, 704 N.E.2d 339 (1997), citing Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9, 13, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952). The question is whether the record “reveals a strong enough possibility of conflict of interest between parent and chil......
-
In re C.M., Case No. 17CA16
...of the parties and through independent investigation cannot be conveyed to a reviewing court by printed record." Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9, 13, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952). {¶75} Additionally, unlike an ordinary civil proceeding in which a jury has no contact with the parties before a tr......
-
In re R.M.
...of the parties and through independent investigation can not be conveyed to a reviewing court by printed record.” Trickey v. Trickey, 158 Ohio St. 9, 13, 106 N.E.2d 772 (1952). Furthermore, unlike an ordinary civil proceeding in which a jury has no contact with the parties before a trial, i......