Wise, In re, 2
| Decision Date | 26 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Habeas Corpus of Sadie Ellen WISE, Minor. Judi Darlene WISE, aka Judi Darlene Morrow, Appellant, v. Jay Maurice WISE, Appellee. 908. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Soble & Cole, P.C. by Joseph H. Soble, Tucson, for appellant.
William Berlat, Tucson, for appellee.
Appellant and appellee were divorced in Marion County, Oregon on June 10, 1964, with custody of their daughter (age 3 years) being awarded to appellant-wife with visitation rights grant to appellee-husband. In November, 1964, appellee took the child without court order or consent of the mother and left the state for the reasons that he thought the child was not being provided with an adequate continuous home. Appellee was remarried in Mississippi in 1965 and lived with his new wife and daughter in Alabama until 1967. Since 1967 he and his family have resided in Tucson. There is evidence that appellant attempted to locate appellee and the child in the 5 1/2 years between the taking of the child and the filing of this action of habeas corpus. Appellant has also remarried and now lives in the State of Washington.
In the habeas corpus action which was held before a Special Court Commissioner, appellant contended she was entitled to lawful custody of the child by reason of the Oregon decree and that the husband had illegally taken the child. The Special Commissioner denied all relief deciding that it was in the best interests of the child for her custody to remain with the father. Appellant argues this was error in that it allows a parent to illegally take a child from its domicile and circumvent the legal process of the state where the divorce decree awarding custody was granted.
Appellant's argument is based primarily upon Brown v. Brown, 105 Ariz. 273, 463 P.2d 71 (1969) in which the Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona courts did not gain jurisdiction to amend a custody award when one parent abducted a child from the legal custody of the other parent, who resided in another state, and brought the child to Arizona. The facts of this case do not fall within the Brown ruling since in Brown it was the abducting parent who tried to invoke the jurisdiction of the Arizona courts by bringing the child here whereas in the present case it is not the abducting parent who is trying to invoke the jurisdiction of Arizona's courts but the parent from whose legal custody the child was taken.
In re Guardianship of Rodgers, 100 Ariz. 269, 413 P.2d 744 (1966) is controlling. In that case both parents obtained a divorce in Texas with custody of the child going to the mothe 9 months and the father 3 months of each year. The father filed an action in Texas to get full custody of the child. The father was awarded temporary custody and the mother enjoined from interfering with it until the father's action was settled. Before the father's action came to trial, the mother brought the child to Arizona. In the Texas hearing the father was granted full custody and brought the decree to Arizona asking through a writ of habeas corpus that it be enforced. The Superior Court of Gila County granted custody to the mother determining that it was in the best interests of the child. This Court of Appeals reversed that determination in 2 Ariz.App. 51, 406 P.2d 253 (1965) on the grounds that the Texas judgment was res judicata. Our supreme court in Rodgers, supra, reinstated the superior court's decision.
In Rodgers, supra, the supreme court classified a foreign custody decree as by its nature lacking the permanence and finality needed for strictly invoking the full faith and credit clause and that strictly following the full faith and credit rule would subvert the best interests and welfare of the child. Rodgers, supra,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canty v. Canty, 1
...was no longer logistically possible. The trial court has broad discretion in determining changed circumstances. In re Wise, 14 Ariz.App. 125, 126, 481 P.2d 296, 297 (1971). Also, the court must consider whether a joint custody arrangement is "logistically possible." A.R.S. § 25- 332(E)(4). ......
-
Pridgeon v. Superior Court, 15708-SA
...417 P.2d 717 (1966). The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a change of circumstances has occurred. In re Wise, 14 Ariz.App. 125, 481 P.2d 296 (1971). On review, the trial court's decision will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion, i.e., a clear absence of e......
-
Graton v. Graton, 1
...residency here has continued for such an extended period of time that in fact domicile has attached to this state. See Wise v. Wise, 14 Ariz.App. 125, 481 P.2d 296 (1971). ...
-
Deatrick v. Galligan, 2
...of a child domiciled in another state, but those instances are the rare exceptions and not the rule. In the case of In re Wise, 14 Ariz.App. 125, 481 P.2d 296 (1971), this court upheld the action of the trial court in a change of custody case notwithstanding the child had been illegally tak......