White v. White, 8410
Decision Date | 17 December 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 8410,8410 |
Parties | George Harrold WHITE, Appellant, v. Opal Faye WHITE, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Young & Green (Gordon H. Green), Muleshoe, for appellant.
Lockhart & Neal (Charles E. Neal), Amarillo, for appellee.
Appellant challenges an order increasing child support payments, asserting that there was insufficient evidence of a change of conditions; that there was insufficient inquiry into his financial circumstances; and that the trial court's entry of this judgment was an abuse of discretion. The judgment is affirmed.
Under the divorce decree of December 14, 1962, appellee was awarded custody of the couple's three children, ages 3 months, 6 years and 7 years. On March 9, 1973, appellee requested the trial court to modify its order of support payments, increasing the amount per child from $30.00 to $100.00. On April 26, 1973, the trial court entered a judgment ordering appellant to pay $100.00 per month child support for each of the two children who were under eighteen at the date of the hearing.
The trial court made findings of fact in part as follows:
'ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellee was the only witness and each of the findings of fact is supported by her testimony. She enumerated her monthly expenses. The testimony shows that the cost of school lunches alone is $12.00 a month for each child and that she had been able to keep monthly grocery bills between $180.00 and $200.00 per month only by putting in a large garden and canning and freezing during the summer. She testified that they had always lived 'very, very close,' that they had She testified that because of the increase in cost of living they need more money.
Her testimony shows that at the time of the divorce and original child support order appellant was unemployed and had no income, but at the time of the hearing, appellant was employed as Chief of Police at Muleshoe and he had told her that his income was approximately $7500.00 a year.
In determining the duty of the parent obligated to support his children after divorce, his duty corresponds to his financial ability with due regard for all his obligations, and he is not liable for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
English v. Fischer
...The impact of inflation on costs is such common knowledge that our courts have taken judicial notice of the fact for years. E.g. White v. White, 503 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1973, no writ); Angel v. Todd, 368 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston 1963, no writ). Under the circumstance......
-
Black v. Bassett, 8873
...might have set a different amount, either larger or smaller. Matter of Marriage of Miller, supra; Friedman v. Friedman, supra; White v. White, 503 S.W.2d 401 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1973, no writ). A reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Hazelwood v. Jin......
-
Marriage of Miller, Matter of, 9122
...by the trial court may not be changed merely because the reviewing court might have set the amount at a greater or lesser sum. White v. White, 503 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1973, no writ). The duty of a father to support his children after divorce corresponds in large measure t......
-
Strader v. Strader
...that it did, and did not abuse its discretion. Bakken v. Bakken, Tex.Civ.App., (Dallas), NWH, 503 S.W.2d 315; White v. White, Tex.Civ.App., (Amarillo) NWH, 503 S.W.2d 401. Contention 3 is, there is no evidence or insufficient evidence to support the trial court's award of arrearages in the ......