Title: Ettinger v. Ettinger

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

383 P.2d 261 (1963) 72 N.M. 300 Sally Anne Hildebrand ETTINGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert V. ETTINGER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 7238. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 1, 1963. *262 R.F. Deacon Arledge, Albuquerque, for appellant. Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Joseph J. Mullins, R. Deane Moyer, Albuquerque, for appellee. CARMODY, Justice. The question before us on this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a change of custody of a 2 1/2-year-old girl from the mother (who is appellant here) to the father. The parties were divorced in June 1960, and appellant was awarded the custody of the child, who at that time was less than a year old. In February 1962, the father (appellee here) moved to amend the final decree because of change in conditions, seeking to have the custody awarded to him. After a hearing, the court found that appellant was an unfit mother and that the welfare of the daughter would be "best served by removing her from the environment which she would encounter if she were to remain" with appellant, and ordered the custody awarded to appellee. The principal thrust of appellant's argument, in essence, is that it was a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in granting the custody of the little girl to the father, absent a finding of gross immorality on the part of the mother. Although there seem to be a few cases favoring custody in the mother which contain language such as contended for by appellant (see Oliver v. Oliver, 1958, 217 Md. 222, 140 A.2d 908; Cassell v. Cassell, 1947, 211 Ark. 489, 200 S.W.2d 965) and some states, such as California and Michigan (Cal. Civil Code, § 138; Mich. Comp. Laws 1948, § 722.541), whose statutes announce the preference, all other things being equal, for custody in the mother, the rule observed by most courts is that while great weight should be given to motherhood as a factor in determining what is for the best interests of the child, the child's welfare is the paramount concern. E.g., C---- v. B----, 358 S.W.2d 454 (Mo. App., 1962); McLemore v. McLemore, 346 S.W.2d 722 (Ky., 1961); Meinhardt v. Meinhardt, 1961, 261 Minn. 272, 111 N.W.2d 782. As a matter of fact, appellant strongly relies upon and quotes at some *263 length from 2 Nelson on Divorce, § 15.09, which commences with the statement: Immediately following this language is the qualification: Appellant, in effect, ignores this last quoted language in her contention, and, additionally, completely overlooks the latter part of the section in Nelson, supra, particularly that appearing at page 232, which states: Our statute relating to custody of children is § 32-1-4, N.M.S.A. 1953, which provides as follows: Under this language, our trial courts are clothed with a wide discretion in determining to which parent the custody of a child shall be awarded. The controlling influence should be, of course, the welfare and best interests of the child. See Bassett v. Bassett, 1952, 56 N.M. 739, 250 P.2d 487; Tuttle v. Tuttle, 1959, 66 N.M. 134, 343 P.2d 838; and Urzua v. Urzua, 1960, 67 N.M. 304, 355 P.2d 123. The same considerations are the basis for modifying a custodial decree, and the court acts as "parens patriae" in revising or changing an order of custody when it appears to be in furtherance of the child's welfare and best interest. Bassett v. Bassett, supra. We concede that, as a general rule, the courts are reluctant to deprive the mother of the custody of a very young child. See Clark v. Clark, 1944, 298 Ky. 18, 181 S.W.2d 397; Richardson v. Richardson, 1951, 72 Idaho 19, 236 P.2d 718; and Hayes v. Hayes, 1956, 134 Colo. 315, 303 P.2d 238. Although no New Mexico case directly in point has been called to our attention, in Albright v. Albright, 1941, 45 N.M. 302, 115 P.2d 59, the court, in its opinion, did quote from the opinion of the trial court in that case, a part of which stated: In the instant case, the trial court found that appellant was "an unfit mother and her continued custody would be harmful to Diana." Such a finding, by the trial judge who saw the parties, observed their demeanor and heard the testimony of the witnesses, is entitled to great weight. No matter if our inclination might have been different from a reading of a cold record, we would not be inclined to substitute our judgment for the facts found by the trial court, based upon substantial evidence. See Bassett v. Bassett, supra. We are satisfied that the trial court could reasonably find as it did, in view of the evidence before it. *264 In order that there may be no doubt as to our ruling, we refer to one of the clearest expressions of the rule which we believe should be followed, as it appears in Shrout v. Shrout, 1960, 224 Or. 521, 356 P.2d 935. There, the Supreme Court of Oregon, in an able opinion written by Chief Justice McAllister, overruled that state's prior decisions, which had stated the test to be "conduct so depraved, immoral, and wicked that to permit her child to remain in her [the mother's] custody would be injurious to its [the child's] best interests." The court stated that such a rule was obviously unsound and distorts the relationship of motherhood as a factor in deciding what is best for children. The court then stated: See also Bjorneby v. Bjorneby, 1960, 56 Wash. 2d 561, 354 P.2d 384, in which the Supreme Court of Washington stated "the so-called `tender years doctrine' is not in itself determinative. It is merely one facet of the basic principle that the welfare of the child is controlling. * * *" It would seem, under the evidence here and the facts found by the trial court, that there was no abuse of discretion. One other matter which requires some mention is appellant's contention that the trial court should have granted appellant's request after the completion of the trial, to consider psychiatric examinations of both parties as to the question of fitness. It should suffice, as an answer to this assertion, that during the actual hearing on at least two occasions, appellee made a similar request, but appellant, through her counsel, refused at that time to agree to such testing. The motion by appellant came after the decision of the court had been announced and, considering the circumstances, we do not deem the denial of the request an abuse of discretion. From what has been said, therefore, we conclude that the order granting the change of custody was without error. The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered. NOBLE and MOISE, JJ., concur.