Case Title: Anderson v. Anderson

Citation: 191 Kan. 76, 379 P.2d 348

Docket Number: 43,056

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1963-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
191 Kan. 76 (1963)
379 P.2d 348
EARL V. ANDERSON, Appellant,
v.
DOROTHY PEARL ANDERSON, Appellee.
No. 43,056

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 2, 1963.
Karl V. Shawver, Jr., of Paola, argued the cause, and Guy Lamer, of Iola, was with him on the brief for the appellant.
John O. Foust, of Iola, argued the cause, and Kenneth H. Foust, of Iola, was with him on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRICE, J.:
This is a child custody matter arising out of a divorce action.
The question concerns the power and authority of the trial court to award custody of the child to the stepmother.
The factual background of the matter is this:
Earl V. Anderson and Dorothy Pearl Anderson were married on June 8, 1958. His eleven-year-old daughter, by a former marriage, Brenda Louise, was taken into their home and lived with them. No children were born of the marriage of Earl and Dorothy. On December 2, 1960, Earl sued Dorothy for a divorce, alleging gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty. In his petition he alleged that, although his daughter Brenda was staying with Dorothy temporarily, he desired to have her care, custody and control.
On January 5, 1961, Dorothy filed her answer in the form of a general denial. It also included the following:
*78 Apparently no further action in the matter was taken until October 23, 1961, when Dorothy filed a cross-petition seeking a divorce from Earl on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty. The prayer of this cross-petition also sought:
The case was tried on October 24, 1961, and taken under advisement.
On December 28, 1961, and while the case was still under advisement, Dorothy filed the following motion to enlarge the prayer of her cross-petition:
The motion was allowed.
On January 9, 1962, the trial court rendered its decision in which it denied a divorce to Earl and granted a divorce to Dorothy on her cross-petition. The court's memorandum decision contained the following:
..............
Pursuant thereto judgment was entered denying a divorce to Earl, granting a divorce to Dorothy, and granting custody of Brenda to Dorothy. Property rights were adjudicated and Earl was ordered to pay the sum of $75 per month for Brenda's support.
Earl has appealed, and the only question presented concerns the power and authority of the trial court to award custody of the child to Dorothy  the stepmother.
The pertinent portion of the statute (G.S. 1961 Supp., 60-1510) setting forth the power and authority of the district court to make provision in a divorce action for minor children reads:
It is contended by Earl, the father, that the words "minor children of the marriage" vest the district court with power and authority to make provision only for such children born as a result of the marriage, and do not include a child of one of the parties by a former marriage. In other words, it is contended that, as between Earl and Dorothy, he has an absolute right to custody, and that the order granting custody to Dorothy, the stepmother  being beyond the power and authority of the court to make  is absolutely void.
As disclosed by the above-quoted portion of its memorandum decision, the trial court relied upon State v. Taylor, 125 Kan. 594, 264 Pac. 1069. With respect to the question presented  the facts of that case and the contentions there made  are identical to those before us, and it was expressly held that under an identical statutory provision the trial court was authorized and empowered to award custody to the stepmother. In the course of the opinion it was said:
The opinion discusses fully the question presented and reference is made to what was there said and held.
*80 In the case before us the trial court, upon competent and substantial evidence, was warranted in making the specific finding of unfitness on the part of the father to have custody, and in further finding that it would be to the best interests of the child to live with her stepmother.
This case is unlike that of Christlieb v. Christlieb, 179 Kan. 408, 295 P.2d 658, and the many cases cited in that opinion, in which it was held that a parent who is able to care for his children and desires to do so, and who has not been found to be an unfit person to have their custody, is entitled to custody as against grandparents or others who have no permanent or legal right to custody.
We know of no reason for modifying or repudiating what was said and held in the Taylor case, above. Under the facts of the present case the trial court clearly was correct in making the order that it did, and the judgment is affirmed.