Title: Irwin v. Irwin
Citation: 211 Kan. 1, 505 P.2d 634
Docket Number: 46,366
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: January 20, 1973

211 Kan. 1 (1973)
505 P.2d 634
HAROLD EUGENE IRWIN, (Harold O. Irwin and Mildred P. Irwin, Intervenors), Appellees,
v.
SHIRLEY CHARLENE IRWIN, Appellant.
No. 46,366

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 20, 1973.
Wilburn Dillon, Jr., of Jones, Schroer, Rice and Dillon, Chartered, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
B.L. Pringle, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HARMAN, C.:
This is a child custody contest between mother and paternal grandparents. The latter prevailed in the trial court and the mother has appealed.
The background of the proceeding should first be stated. In 1966 in the district court of Shawnee county, Kansas, Harold Eugene Irwin filed suit for divorce from his wife, Shirley Charlene Irwin, appellant herein. Shirley filed an entry of appearance but otherwise defaulted in the action. Harold Eugene was granted a divorce September 21, 1966, and was also awarded custody of the parties' two children, then aged three and two. Shirley was granted rights of visitation. This judgment was rendered by the then judge of division No. 2 of the trial court, the Honorable Marion Beatty. The journal entry of judgment evidencing the divorce decree contained no finding of unfitness as to the mother, Shirley. It appears that at the time the divorce was granted the children were actually being cared for by their paternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Harold Otis Irwin, appellees herein, and the children have since remained in their custody.
*3 In 1967 Shirley filed in the trial court a motion for change of the children's custody to her. This application was heard April 4, 1967, by Judge Beatty and was denied. Both sets of grandparents, as well as the parents, appeared at this hearing. The court made the following finding:
The court ordered the father, Harold Eugene, to make monthly payments through the court clerk toward the support of the children. Again, the journal entry of judgment reflecting the court's action contained no finding of unfitness on the part of the mother. No appeal was taken from this order.
March 16, 1970, the mother, whose name is now Shirley Charlene Miller, filed another motion for change of custody of the children to her. The paternal grandparents were permitted to intervene in the proceeding and to file an answer in which they alleged no change of circumstances sufficient to warrant change in the children's custody had occurred and their best interest and welfare would be served by leaving their custody unchanged; in the alternative they answered that if a change should be made the children's best interest would be served by awarding custody to their father.
The motion was heard by the Honorable Michael A. Barbara, successor to Judge Beatty as judge of division No. 2, and was denied July 1, 1970. This appeal by the mother is from that order.
The matter at issue may best be understood by quoting the remarks of the trial court made at the conclusion of the evidence and at the time judgment was rendered, as follows:
..............
"THE COURT: ...
The court's formal ruling was journalized thus:
The parties agree the issue before this court is embodied in the statement of points filed by appellant as follows:
Hence the record on appeal contains none of the evidence heard by the trial court in determining the motion.
Briefly stated, appellant contends the trial court erred in ruling, absent a showing of her unfitness, that she has any burden to show changed circumstances. She asserts that in the absence of a finding of unfitness the natural mother has a right to custody of her minor children as against their grandparents, and since there never has been a finding of unfitness on her part in the decree of divorce, the order of April 4, 1967, or in the July 1, 1970, order, she is entitled to custody.
Appellees respond that in matters pertaining to child custody in divorce actions the order of the court becomes res judicata as to all the facts obtaining at the time the custody order is entered; therefore, the previous grant of custody to the grandparents removed from consideration the issue of unfitness of the mother and the only question to be decided was whether there had been a sufficient change of circumstances to justify change of custody from the grandparents.
First, we deal briefly with the doctrine of res judicata as applicable here.
K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 60-1610 provides in pertinent part with respect to custody of children in a divorce action:
In construing the predecessor of this statute, G.S. 1949, 60-1510, which contained virtually identical provisions so far as pertinent *7 here, this court in Duffy v. Duffy, 176 Kan. 112, 268 P.2d 931, iterated the rule that the jurisdiction of a district court over custody of children in a divorce action is a continuing one and the court may on proper motion and notice modify and change any order previously made providing for such custody whenever circumstances are shown which make such modification necessary. Stated as a general proposition, this means that a custody decree can be modified when a change of circumstances justifies such action.
The doctrine of res judicata has been recognized in child custody contests but its application is limited and a court order conferring custody is not a finality in the same sense as a final judgment in other types of litigation. In Hardman v. Hardman, 203 Kan. 825, 457 P.2d 86, the contest for custody was between the parents, in which situation it is not required that one parent be found unfit in order to award custody to the other, and the extent of the doctrine was there illustrated thus:
Here there was no prior adjudication of the fitness of the mother and the doctrine of res judicata has no application.
This court for many years in child custody cases has adhered to that which has sometimes been called the parental right doctrine (see anno. Child Custody  Mother v. Grandparent, 29 ALR 3d 366, § 2, p. 379, § 6[a], p. 391) the rationale for which may be found in Stout v. Stout, 166 Kan. 459, 201 P.2d 637. In Christlieb v. Christlieb, 179 Kan. 408, 295 P.2d 658, the doctrine was tersely stated:
See, also more recent cases cited at 4-6 Hatcher's Kansas Digest, Perm. Supp. (rev. ed.), Parent and Child, § 8.
In Christlieb the contest was between the children's mother and their maternal grandmother. The children's parents were divorced by a decree which granted eventual custody to the maternal grandmother. The trial court did not then, or in any of several subsequent applications by the mother for custody, find that the mother was *8 an unfit person to have custody. On appeal an order of the trial court denying the mother's latest application for custody was reversed. This court announced and applied the rule stated above despite recognition of the fact that the grandparent may have been giving the children proper and suitable care and may have formed an attachment for them.
In the case at bar the trial court implicitly acknowledged the parental right doctrine but proceeded upon the basis that a finding of the mother's unfitness had already been made, that is, that Judge Beatty had, as a part of his April 4, 1967, judgment, made such a finding. The trial court's ruling, and appellees' argument here in support of its affirmance, are premised upon that assumption. The trial court appears to have proceeded on the theory its predecessor must have made such a finding; otherwise, the April 4, 1967, order giving custody to the grandparents would have been erroneous. The difficulty is, the record reveals no such finding, nor, in the face of the numerous decisions referred to above, can any such presumption be indulged. An award of custody to third persons as against either of the parents simply does not ipso facto include a finding of unfitness on the part of the latter. The 1967 award of custody to the grandparents would under our decisions have been subject to reversal on appeal, and the current award must be so treated, premised as it was on the erroneous assumption. The general rule that a change of circumstances must be shown to obtain modification of a child custody order does not apply where there has been no adjudication of unfitness of the only parent seeking custody.
The judgment denying change of custody is reversed. In that judgment, made July 1, 1970, the trial court declined adjudication of the issue of appellant's fitness to have custody of her children. This issue should now be determined in the usual way, with evidence and findings on the subject, based on present circumstances and conditions. In the absence of sufficient evidence and a finding of unfitness on the part of the parent seeking custody, the doctrine of parental preference should take its course.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings in accord with the views herein expressed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.