Walker v. Superior Court for Ventura County
Decision Date | 01 December 1966 |
Citation | 246 Cal.App.2d 749,55 Cal.Rptr. 114 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Dorothy WALKER, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California for the COUNTY OF VENTURA, Respondent; Charles WALKER, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 31041. |
Paul B. Noel, Thousand Oaks, for petitioner.
Woodruff J. Deem, Ventura, for respondent.
Jack H. Berkowitz, Oxnard, for real party in interest.
*
Dorothy Walker, petitioner, is the defendant and cross-complainant in an action for divorce commenced in March 1965 by Charles Walker, the real party in interest, in the Superior Court for Ventura County.
Petitioner challenges the validity of the orders of the respondent court of September 7 and 8, 1966 that Charles Walker, one of the minor children of the parties, shall remain in the custody of the father, and that he shall be permitted to take the child with him to Canada to reside with him there during the period of his employment in Canada, upon the posting of security, notwithstanding her appeal from that order. We granted the petition for review because of the petitioner's contention that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order in question.
The facts essential to our determination of the question of jurisdiction appear in the record of the proceedings in the trial court filed in response to our writ. At the time the parties were married in December 1959 petitioner, here referred to for convenience as the mother, was the mother of two minor children by a former marriage, namely, Richard, born in November 1947, and Jane, born in February 1949. After the marriage the real party in interest, here referred to for convenience as the father, adopted these two children. Charles Walker, who is the pawn in the present dispute, was born May 4, 1963. As the trial court found, in its memorandum of decision of August 31, 1966, the mother voluntarily surrendered the physical custody of all three children to the father shortly after his complaint was filed without any order of the court 'and without a fight in court, in spite of the fact that she had the aid of counsel, and in spite of the fact that she had ample funds for litigation, and * * * allowed this situation to continue for just about a year before she finally sought to raise the custody question before the court.' Ever since then all three children have been and now are in their father's custody. Richard and Jane, who are not involved here, have expressed a strong desire to remain with their father. The mother does not seek to regain their custody.
The mother first sought to obtain an order giving her custody of Charles early in 1966. This resulted in the court's order of April 22, 1966 awarding temporary custody to the father and referring the matter to the county probation officer for investigation and report. Two months later the mother obtained an order requiring the father to show cause why the court should not modify the order of April 22 and make an order giving her custody pendente lite. The report of the probation officer was filed July 18, and the matter was heard and submitted on August 18.
On August 31, 1966 the court filed the memorandum of decision to which we have already referred. After commenting on some of the facts and noting that his order of April 22 had been made 'upon considerably less evidence and without the aid of a report from the probation office,' the court said:
Although it is not clear from the record how the matter came to the court's attention, we must assume from the further comments of the court in its memorandum of decision that at the hearing on August 18, 1966 the father testified that he was planning to move to Canada at the direction of his employer, and planned to move the children to Canada. 'I am concerned,' said the court,
The conditions referred to in the memorandum of decision are reflected in the court's order of September 7, which is the subject of this proceeding. So far as is pertinent here, that order reads as follows:
The order of September 7 was filed September 8, together with the required bond executed by the father's employer and approved by the court. After the court denied the mother's motion for a stay of the order of September 7, the father moved to Canada with the three children.
In the proceeding now before us the mother seeks an annulment of the order of September 7 with respect to the custody of the child and of the order of September 8 approving the bond, on the sole ground that the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction in making those orders. Our only concern is with the narrow question thus raised. We are not concerned with the question of whether the order of September 7 is an appealable order, or with the merits of the case. Those matters can be settled when the record on appeal is filed.
In our opinion the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Egle v. Egle
...intent in changing residences is to frustrate or destroy the other parent's visitation rights. Id.; Walker v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.2d 749, 755, 55 Cal.Rptr. 114, 117 (1966); see also Rosin v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.2d 486, 500, 5 Cal.Rptr. 421, 429 (1960). Where a motive to conc......
-
Marriage of Burgess, In re
...61 Cal.App.3d 289, 132 Cal.Rptr. 261; Forslund v. Forslund, supra, 225 Cal.App.2d 476, 37 Cal.Rptr. 489; Walker v. Superior Court (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 749, 753, 55 Cal.Rptr. 114; Shea v. Shea (1950) 100 Cal.App.2d 60, 63, 223 P.2d 32; Dozier v. Dozier (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 714, 719, 334 P.......
-
Marriage of Carlson, In re
...free movement." (In re Marriage of Ciganovich (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 289, 293, 132 Cal.Rptr. 261; see also Walker v. Superior Court (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 749, 753-755, 55 Cal.Rptr. 114; Forslund v. Forslund (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 476, 494, 37 Cal.Rptr. 489; Milne v. Goldstein (1961) 194 Cal.Ap......
-
Marriage of Ciganovich, In re
...of his visitation rights is 'generally' insufficient to justify restraint on the mother's free movement. (Walker v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.2d 749, 754, 55 Cal.Rptr. 114; Stack v. Stack, 189 Cal.App.2d 357, 367, 11 Cal.Rptr. 177.) The general rule does not govern when the mother acts wi......