Title: Gheen v. Gheen

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Affirmed as modified April 26, 1967.
Kendrick M. Mercer, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Johnson, Johnson & Harrang, Eugene.
E.B. Sahlstrom, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent. *17 On the brief were Sahlstrom, Anderson & Starr, Eugene.
Before PERRY, Chief Justice, and McALLISTER, SLOAN, DENECKE and REDDING, Justices.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
REDDING, J. (Pro Tempore).
This is an appeal by the defendant husband from that part of a decree of divorce which awards the custody of the two minor children of the parties to the maternal grandmother.
At the conclusion of the trial the trial judge made the following among other findings of fact:
No purpose would be served by here reviewing the immoral conduct of the plaintiff mother. Suffice it to say that from the record it is abundantly clear that she is not a fit or proper person to have the custody of the minor children of the parties.
The trial court granted the defendant father a divorce and made no findings of unfitness on his part. Indeed, from a careful review of the record we find nothing which would warrant a finding that the father is not a fit and proper parent to have the custody and care of his minor children.
Presently, the father has no suitable arrangements for the care of the children in his own home. However, should he be granted custody, he contemplates having the children live with him in the home of his parents. The parents of the defendant, like the parents of the plaintiff, are persons of exemplary character. The uncontradicted evidence is that defendant was a good father; that he loved his children; spent time with them; cooked for them; dressed them; cleaned house and generally met their physical needs. The defendant's love for the children is further evidence by the fact that he missed only one visitation during the pendency of the divorce suit, from April 8, 1965 to March 21, 1966.
1. It is the general rule that unless incompetent or unfit, a parent will be preferred to the grandparent. This is clearly stated and summarized by the author in his treatise on divorce entitled Nelson, Divorce and *19 Annulment 244-245, Custody of Children § 15.15 (2d ed 1961):
He continues in § 15.16 at 250-252:
2. This court has consistently held that in the event of divorce, unless it be clearly shown that both parents are either incompetent or unfit, the natural right of the parent to the care and custody of minor children should not, except for most cogent reasons, be denied in favor of third persons, including grandparents. *20 Watson v. Watson, 213 Or 183, 323 P2d 335 (1958); Pick v. Pick, 197 Or 74, 251 P2d 472 (1952); Turner v. Hendryx, 86 Or 590, 167 P 1019, 169 P 109 (1917); Gustin v. Gustin, 59 Or 226, 116 P 1072 (1911); Barnes v. Long, 54 Or 548, 104 P 296, 25 LRA (ns) 172 (1909); Jackson v. Jackson, 8 Or 402 (1880).
3. It follows that the decree of the trial court should be and it hereby is modified by striking therefrom the provisions respecting the custody and support of the minor children of plaintiff and defendant, substituting therefor the following:
Except as herein modified, the decree is affirmed. Neither party shall recover costs.