Title: Erickson v. Erickson
Citation: 220 N.W.2d 487
Docket Number: 44396
State: Minnesota
Issuer: Minnesota Supreme Court
Date: July 26, 1974

220 N.W.2d 487 (1974) Susan Ann ERICKSON, Respondent, v. Raymond D. ERICKSON, Appellant. No. 44396. Supreme Court of Minnesota. July 26, 1974. *488 John W. Harrigan and William J. Hanley, Minneapolis, for appellant. Barnett, Ratelle, Hennessy, Vander Vort &amp; Stasel and James H. Hennessy, Minneapolis, for respondent. Heard before PETERSON, KELLY, and KNUTSON, JJ., and considered and decided by the court. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff, Susan A. Erickson, obtained an absolute divorce from defendant, Raymond D. Erickson, in February 1973. The divorce was granted on the ground that defendant had conducted himself in a manner detrimental to the marriage relationship within the purview of the then applicable statute, Minn.St.1971, § 518.06(3). The trial court awarded custody of the couple's minor child to plaintiff, subject to reasonable visitation rights to be exercised by defendant. Defendant's appeal from the judgment contests only the custody award. Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1960 in Oregon. At the time of the trial both were in their early forties and both had full-time occupations, defendant as an accountant and plaintiff as an office librarian. The parties had one child, Laura Ann Erickson, who was born on June 14, 1969. Laura was approximately 3½ at the time of the trial and spent the hours while her mother worked in a licensed day care home. Defendant's major claim on appeal is that the trial court judgment awarding custody of Laura to plaintiff mother was arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence. Having carefully examined the record, we find little to support defendant's contentions. Several well-established rules govern the decision and review of child custody matters under Minn.St. 518.17. In Hanson v. Hanson, 284 Minn. 321, 324, 170 N.W.2d 213, 215 (1969), we identified two major principles: The primary question before us, therefore, is whether the trial court abused its discretion. We hold that it clearly did not. While the evidence showed that both parents had good relationships with the child, plaintiff has been Laura's primary caretaker since her birth. The weight of the evidence was to the effect that plaintiff was a conscientious and concerned mother, emotionally stable and largely free of problems with alcohol, whereas defendant had had some significant problems in this area. Although there was some testimony that plaintiff tended to be overprotective of Laura, even defendant himself conceded at trial that Laura had made significant progress in developing independence and skills. In sum, we consider the custody award fully supported by the evidence. Defendant also asserts that the mother should not be given an absolute or arbitrary preference in the custody of young children. We do not disagree. As the court noted in the recent case of Ryg v. Kerkow, 296 Minn. 265, 266, 207 N.W.2d 701, 703 (1973): While defendant is therefore correct in urging that the mother not be given an absolute preference on the basis of her sex, there is nothing in this record to suggest that the trial court gave plaintiff such a preference or otherwise failed to follow the statutory criteria. Finding no merit in the other points argued before us by defendant, we affirm the custody award. Attorneys fees of $400 for this appeal, to be paid by defendant, are allowed to plaintiff-respondent. Affirmed.