Case Title: Turoff v. Turoff

Citation: 527 P.2d 1275

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 1974-10-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
527 P.2d 1275 (1974) Mary Virginia TUROFF, nka Mary Virginia Baker, Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant-Appellant, v. Christopher G. TUROFF, Defendant, Cross-Plaintiff-Appellee. No. 5429. Supreme Court of Hawaii. October 25, 1974. *1276 Helen B. Ryan, Honolulu (Ryan & Ryan, Honolulu, of counsel), for plaintiff, cross-defendant-appellant. Robert A. Franklin, Honolulu, for defendant, cross-plaintiff-appellee. Before RICHARDSON, C.J., KOBAYASHI, OGATA and MENOR, JJ., and FONG, Circuit Judge, assigned by reason of vacancy. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from the Decision and Order of the Family Court denying appellant's request for an award of custody of the minor child of the parties, which award was heretofore granted to appellee. We affirm. On April 27, 1971, Mary Virginia Turoff, now Mary Virginia Baker (appellant), filed a complaint for divorce. In the ensuing proceedings Circuit Judge Betty M. Vitousek, Judge of the Family Court of the first circuit, in a Decision and Order dated January 31, 1972 (initial Decision and Order), granted custody of the minor daughter, the only child of the parties to the proceedings, to the father (appellee), a lieutenant colonel in the United States Air Force. The child was then four years of age. Both parties remarried soon after their divorce. On the appeal by appellant from the initial Decision and Order this court, by a memorandum opinion, affirmed it. Subsequently, on orders to show cause filed by both parties wherein the appellant, inter alia, sought change of award of custody of the minor daughter from appellee to appellant, Circuit Judge Vitousek again ruled in favor of the appellee and refused to change the award of custody of the child from appellee to appellant. Appellant's present appeal is from the Decision and Order dated February 6, 1973 (second Decision and Order). In the initial Decision and Order of the Family Court the court made the following pertinent statements: *1277 In the second Decision and Order the Family Court made the following relevant statements: The appellant seeks a reversal of the Family Court's second Decision and Order mainly on the following grounds: 1. That the Family Court has never found appellant to be an unfit mother; 2. That the Family Court did not consider in the initial Decision and Order the ill-effects on the minor child resulting from appellee's change of military assignments and thus there is a material change since the initial Decision and Order which requires a modification or change of an award of the custody of the minor child to appellant; 3. That the minor daughter needs the natural mother for proper stability, growth and sense of love and security; 4. That the case law supports appellant's request of award of the custody of the minor daughter. The relevant statute provides the following: We are of the opinion that under the relevant statute, HRS § 571-46(1), each parent has an equal right to an award of custody of the minor child. That is, the law in this jurisdiction takes a neutral stance and thus, neither parent has any preferred status to an award of custody. Generally, the critical question to be resolved is whether or not the "best interest of the child" has been served when a parent is awarded the custody of the child. In this resolution the Family Court is best able to weigh the evidence, whether conflicting or not, and to determine the credibility of each witness. The Family Court has considerable discretion in requiring investigations and reports concerning the care, welfare, and custody of any minor child of the parties.[1] HRS § 571-46(5) further provides: In the instant case the question is whether substantial change has occurred since the initial Decision and Order requiring modification or change in the award of custody of the minor child. The Family Court herein, to the extent possible, exercised its powers to adduce the available evidence and thereafter reached its current decision. We will not set aside the findings of fact of the Family Court unuess we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed by the Family Court. A study of both of the Decision and Orders in juxtaposition, and a review of the record compel this court to conclude that the Honorable Betty M. Vitousek has, in a thorough and meticulous manner, made the proper factual determinations and reached the correct legal conclusions. [1] HRS § 571-46(4) reads: (4) Whenever good cause appears therefor, the court may require an investigation and report concerning the care, welfare, and custody of any minor child of the parties. When so directed by the court, investigators or professional personnel attached to or assisting the court shall make investigations and reports which shall be made available to all interested parties and counsel before hearing, and such reports may be received in evidence if no objection is made and, if objection is made, may be received in evidence provided the person or persons responsible for the report are available for cross-examination as to any matter which has been investigated.