Case Title: Jackson v. Jackson

Citation: 181 Kan. 1, 309 P.2d 705

Docket Number: 40,231

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1957-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
181 Kan. 1 (1957)
309 P.2d 705
LEON JACKSON, Appellee,
v.
VENA IRENE JACKSON, now VENA IRENE JACKSON FRENCH, Appellant.
No. 40,231

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 6, 1957.
Richard A. Hickey, of Liberal, argued the cause and Hayden C. Covington, of Brooklyn, New York, Collis R. Harner, of Dodge City, Rex A. Neubauer, of Liberal, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Chas. Vance, of Liberal, argued the cause and H. Hobble, Jr., and Chester A. Nordling, both of Liberal, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HALL, J.:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court changing the care, custody and control of minor children.
Leon Jackson, appellee herein and as plaintiff, filed an action for divorce against Vena Irene Jackson (now French), defendant and appellant herein. On defendant's cross petition Vena Irene Jackson was awarded a divorce from plaintiff, a division of the property and the care, custody and control of the three minor children; Stephen age 7, James age 5, and Dianne age 3.
The court gave the plaintiff the right of visitation at reasonable times, the further right to have custody for a period of 60 days during June and July of each year subject to the right of visitation by defendant during that period. The court further ordered the plaintiff to pay $50.00 a month for the support of each child until the child should become of legal age and retained jurisdiction for any further orders.
*3 The plaintiff previously appealed to this court from that portion of the judgment awarding custody of the children to the defendant (Jackson v. Jackson, 175 Kan. 418, 264 P.2d 1087).
In that case, plaintiff specified as error the district court's order awarding the custody of the minor children to the defendant and the overruling of his motion for a new trial. This court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
On July 28, 1955, the plaintiff filed a motion for a change in the order of the custody of said minor children.
On August 9, 1955, defendant filed a motion for allowance of attorney fees and August 29, 1955, defendant filed her answer to plaintiff's motion to change custody of minor children and requested the court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On September 5, 1955, the time set for hearing, defendant filed a motion for continuance of the matter which was overruled by the court. Defendant moved the court in accordance with G.S. 1949, 60-2934, that upon concluding the evidence of the witnesses present in court that the court continue the matter until she could procure the evidence of two of her chief witnesses and that 15 days would be adequate. The court denied the continuance but ordered the affidavits submitted in the motion to be admitted as the testimony of the missing witnesses, Dr. LeNeve and Mrs. Helen Johns. Plaintiff admitted the contents of said affidavits as to what the witnesses would testify but denied its truth, materiality, relevancy and competency.
On or before December 24, 1955, the court gave tentative findings of fact and conclusions of law with notice that judgment accordingly would be entered at the regular January motion day in Richfield on January 3, 1956.
On December 24, 1955, defendant filed a motion for additional findings of fact. A motion was also filed to strike portions of the court's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The final findings of fact and conclusions of law of the court were filed on January 16, 1956. Judgment was presumably entered by the court on January 6, 1956.
On January 5th, defendant again filed motions directed against the court's findings and conclusions and on January 6th filed a motion for new trial and for stay of execution during appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Journal Entry of judgment filed January 16, 1956, changed the care, custody and control of said minor children from the *4 defendant to the plaintiff subject to the reasonable rights of visitation in favor of defendant. The court also awarded judgment against the plaintiff and for the defendant in the amount of $300 for attorney fees and expenses of her attorneys.
The court further heard the motions of defendant for additional findings of fact, to strike certain portions of the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law, the motion for stay of execution and the motion for a new trial.
The court sustained two portions of defendant's motion for additional findings of fact and overruled the balance of said motions. The motion for stay of execution and for new trial were overruled.
The court retained jurisdiction over the subject matter of the custody of the children as to modifications and changes of orders as may in time prove necessary.
Defendant makes five specifications of error.
It is only necessary to consider the first specification. As appellant aptly states in his brief:
This specification of error is as follows:
While a reading of the entire record of the case may not prove the element of subterfuge, the whole question of religion so permeates the record that this court believes defendant's specification of error is well taken.
Religion was inherently in the case from its very inception. While plaintiff's motion for change of custody did not specify grounds, it was alleged in defendant's answer that plaintiff's counsel stated the allegations of plaintiff's motion were based upon the following facts:
In its tentative findings of fact the court also found the plaintiff was basing his motion on the above four grounds.
The evidence in the trial was replete with testimony and exhibits as to the tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses and the possible effect of such beliefs upon the children. Plaintiff's first witness identified and the court admitted the following books as plaintiff's Exhibit "1":
*6 The court made twenty final findings of fact.
In findings two and three, the court found:
The court also found:
These findings alone might have supported the court's judgment but the court also made these additional findings all of which pertain to religion.
*7 The Journal Entry amended paragraph 10 as follows:
Upon all these findings the court made the following conclusions of law.
It is well recognized in this state that the jurisdiction of the district court over minor children is a continuing jurisdiction and its orders concerning the custody, control or support of the children may be changed from time to time as conditions require. (Goetz v. Goetz, 180 Kan. 569, 306 P.2d 167; Hayn v. Hayn, 162 Kan. 189, 175 P.2d 127; and Ramey v. Ramey, 170 Kan. 1, 223 P.2d 695.)
Likewise, it is the law of this jurisdiction that the paramount consideration of the court is the welfare and best interest of the child. (Westhafer v. Westhafer, 125 Kan. 43, 262 Pac. 555; Janney v. Janney, 159 Kan. 230, 154 P.2d 131; Lamberson v. Lamberson, 164 Kan. 38, 187 P.2d 366; Decker v. Decker, 171 Kan. 380, 233 P.2d 527; Hedding v. Inman, 172 Kan. 567, 241 P.2d 479; and Jackson v. Jackson, 175 Kan. 418, 264 P.2d 1087.)
This court has repeatedly taken the position that the trial court is the best judge of the best interests of the child and for this reason in the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion in awarding the custody and control of minor children, the judgment of the district court will not be disturbed on appeal. (Goetz v. Goetz, supra; and Travis v. Travis, 163 Kan. 54, 180 P.2d 310.)
However, where an abuse of sound judicial discretion is affirmatively shown in the record, this court has not hesitated to reverse, modify or otherwise change the order of the district court. See Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 147 Kan. 485, 77 P.2d 946; Lindbloom v. Lindbloom, 177 Kan. 286, 279 P.2d 243.
The only question upon this appeal is whether or not the court abused its discretion by allowing the matter of religion to become an integral part of its determination of this custody matter.
The problem of religion in custody matters has previously been before this court.
Justice Burch wrote in Denton v. James, 107 Kan. 729, Syl. 5 and 6, 193 Pac. 307, where the court said:
The court further said on pages 736 and 737:
"In the case of Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, the supreme court of the United States enunciated a principle which is as applicable here as it was in the controversy under decision:
This rule is followed in many states. Similar decisions are Cory *10 v. Cory, 70 Cal. A.2d 563, 161 P.2d 385; Stone v. Stone, 16 Wash. 2d 315, 133 P.2d 526; Reynolds v. Rayborn, 116 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. Civ. App. 1938); and Salvaggio v. Barnett, 248 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. Civ. App. 1952), 344 U.S. 879, 97 L. Ed. 681, 73 S. Ct. 176, 43 A.L.R.2d 393.
The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Salvaggio case. Because of its similarity to this case, the following is quoted from 43 A.L.R.2d 393 regarding it.
Appellee raises the point that appellant has waived her right to review by acquiescence in accepting the $300.00 attorney fees allowed her. Appellee makes reference to the well established rule to the effect that a litigant who complains of a judgment must be consistent in his conduct with reference to it. If he recognizes its validity, he will not be held to say that it's invalid. He cannot on appeal contest its validity where he has accepted the benefits or a substantial part of the benefits of the challenged judgment (Ralston v. Ralston, 125 Kan. 619, 264 Pac. 146).
Appellee cites Ralston v. Ralston, supra; Fadely v. Fadely, 128 Kan. 287, 276 Pac. 826; Morton v. Morton, 149 Kan. 77, 86 P.2d 486; and Elliott v. Elliott, 154 Kan. 145, 114 P.2d 823.
The Elliott and Morton cases were divorce cases, but in each case the appellant had accepted a property settlement. Attorney fees were not involved. Attorney fees were involved in the Ralston and Fadely cases, but these cases involved partition actions and the attorney fees were included as benefits of the judgment.
Under the provisions of G.S. 1949, 60-1507 and the cases of this court, a wife is entitled to attorney fees for "the efficient preparation of her case" in divorce, alimony and custody actions. The acceptance of such attorney fees does not come within the rule of acquiescence in the benefits of a judgment.
In its conclusions of law, the district court apparently regarded the rule of religion in custody cases, but the findings of the court are so inconsistent with the rule that the record cannot be allowed to stand as it is. In this custody case, the record affirmatively shows religion was in it from beginning to end. The court may have had other good and sufficient reasons for changing custody, but they cannot be distinguished from those of religion. We must hold from the record that the court abused its discretion and that its order changing custody must be set aside.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court changing custody is set aside, and cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
PRICE. J., dissenting:
I am unable to agree to the disposition made of this case. In a matter of this kind the determination of *12 what is for the welfare and best interests of a child naturally covers a wide scope of inquiry. It is quite true that considerable evidence concerning the matter of religion was introduced, and also it is true that the subject was mentioned in the trial court's findings and conclusions. I am in accord with what was held in Denton v. James, 107 Kan. 729, 193 Pac. 307, 12 A.L.R. 1146, to the effect that in a dispute relating to custody religious views afford no ground for depriving a parent of custody who is otherwise qualified, but I think it may not be said that here the trial court's decision was based solely on the ground of religion. In fact, conclusions 1 and 2 make it clear that it was not. If a divorced parent's extreme religious views and activities are such as to result in emotional instability in such parent, then most certainly I feel that a trial court has not only the right, but the duty, to take such fact into consideration in the determination of what appears to be the welfare and best interests of the child and to which parent custody should be granted. As I read this record, that, in reality, was what was done in this case. Custody matters always are difficult for trial courts. After a full-scale hearing a custody order was entered. I see nothing erroneous about it or anything that savors of an abuse of discretion. I would affirm the judgment.
WERTZ, J., concurs with the foregoing dissent.