Ward v. Ward, 6995
| Citation | 88 Ariz. 285,356 P.2d 30 |
| Decision Date | 19 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 6995,6995 |
| Parties | Dowell P. WARD, Appellant, v. Aurelia C. WARD, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
W. E. Ferguson, Holbrook, and C. D. McCauley, Winslow, for appellant.
Marshall W. Haislip and Minne & Sorenson, Phoenix, for appellee. On Motion for Rehearing: Christy, Kleinman, Peterson & Hoyt, Phoenix, for appellee.
Upon motion for rehearing we have determined that the proper procedure for the disposition of this case should have been to send it back to the trial court for the limited purpose of hearing evidence on the issue of the fitness of appellant-father, Dowell P. Ward, to have custody of the child. As we indicated in our original opinion, no such determination has been made. While in the absence of evidence to the contrary the law presumes the fitness of the father to have partial custody, Stewart v. Stewart, 41 Cal.2d 447, 260 P.2d 44, in this case the appellee-mother has alleged the unfitness of the father and is entitled to have an opportunity to put in evidence on the issue of whether or not the appellant is a fit and proper person to have the care, custody and control of the minor child.
Our original decision is modified to read; the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for the limited purpose of hearing evidence on the issue of the fitness of the appellant, Dowell P. Ward, to have custody of the child. Our previous opinion and order are in all other respects affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.A.R. v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...preference are persuasive, although not controlling. Ward v. Ward, 88 Ariz. 130, 353 P.2d 895, modified on other grounds, 88 Ariz. 285, 356 P.2d 30 (1960); see also Bailey v. Bailey, 3 Ariz.App. 138, 141, 412 P.2d 480, 483 (1966) (child's preference is important but not necessarily controll......
-
Stapley v. Stapley
...from the decree is that 'other things' were equal. Ward v. Ward, 88 Ariz. 130, 353 P.2d 895 (1960), modified in another respect, 88 Ariz. 285, 356 P.2d 30 (1960). It is axiomatic that the children's welfare is the primary concern and that appellate courts will defer to the trial court's det......
-
Caruso v. Superior Court In and For Pima County
...of proving that the infant was dependent. Arizona State Dept. of Public Welfare v. Barlow, 80 Ariz. 249, 296 P.2d 298; Ward v. Ward, 88 Ariz. 285, 356 P.2d 30. Moreover, it had to carry the burden by clear and convincing evidence. Application of Gault, 99 Ariz. 180, 407 P.2d The Catholic So......
-
Henning v. Henning, 6709
...353 P.2d 895. In the absence of evidence to the contrary the law presumes the fitness of the father to have partial custody. Ward v. Ward, 88 Ariz. 285, 356 P.2d 30. The trial court is given broad discretion in determining what will be most beneficial for the child in awarding custody since......