Court Opinion

ID: 9633921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:07:49.214733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:45.460069
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
Contrary to the majority, my conclusion after reading the transcript of testimony is that the father did establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence (1) a sufficient change of circumstances and (2) that these circumstances were injuriously affecting the nine and one-half year old daughter of the parties. I *318agree with the trial judge and the experienced investigator for the Multnomah County Court of Domestic Relations, who conducted a custody study, that the interests of the daughter would unquestionably be best served by transferring the custody to the father.
I will not attempt to detail the evidence. Most persuasive to me of the need for a change of custody was the following: First, the testimony indicating that the child was often left unattended and required to fend and care for herself at night. This resulted from the mother’s unwillingness to change her work schedule to better coincide with the child’s school schedule. Despite the demonstrably ill effects of this schedule upon the child, the mother clung tenaciously to it, thus indicating her priorities so far as this child is concerned.
Second, I have a great deal of concern for the effect upon the child of the mother’s having intimate relations with a man in the home and in close proximity to the child.
As I read the decisions cited below, the courts of this state are saying that it is not conducive to the wholesome and proper upbringing of a child of formative years for her to be exposed to a home situation where the custodial parent is having intimate relations in the home or in close proximity to the child, with a person to whom the parent is not married. See, for example, the following cases where a similar conclusion was reached in comparable factual situations: Sullivan v. Sullivan, 236 Or 192, 387 P2d 571 (1963); Gunderson and Gunderson, 26 Or App 115, 551 P2d 1317, Sup Ct review denied (1976); Dahlman and Dahlman, 20 Or App 375, 531 P2d 909, Sup Ct review denied (1975); Sarty v. Forney, 12 Or App 251, 506 P2d 535 (1973); Mace v. Mace, 9 Or App 435, 497 P2d 677 (1972). See also, A. v. A., 15 Or App 353, 514 P2d 358, 515 P2d 730 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974). In A. v. A., supra, the custodial parent of two children was alleged to be engaged in a homosexual relationship *319with a man who was living in the family home. We affirmed the decision of the trial judge requiring that the man cease living in the home and that there be no sexual relations with him in the home.
In the case at bar the inference I glean from the testimony is that the minor daughter of the parties was not only aware of the sexual relations in the home at these times, she was disturbed by it.
I do not contend, nor do I read the above decisions as holding that a divorced and unremarried parent is precluded from having sexual encounters.1 The rationale of these decisions is simply that such encounters should not occur in close proximity to the child or under circumstances which are known to, and can, have an adverse effect upon the child. As we noted in Dahlman and Dahlman, supra, a mother’s extramarital actions and relationships would not permanently disqualify her from being awarded custody; however, such matters must be considered together with other relevant factors in determining what is in the best interests of the child or children.
Thirdly, I find persuasive here the long established rule of judicial restraint which is normally observed by appellate courts in dealing with child custody appeals. While we of course review de novo in child custody matters, here perhaps more than in any other area of domestic relations law, the conclusions of the trial judge, who sees and hears the parents, the child and the witnesses face-to-face, should be accorded the greatest weight. As we stated in Brown v. Brown, 4 Or App 621, 625-26, 481 P2d 643 (1971), in upholding the child custody decision of the trial judge:
"* * * Great caution should be exercised by an appellate court in overturning a decree of a trial court as to the custody of children where the determination is purely one of fact and the evidence is sufficient to warrant the conclusion reached by the trial judge. Stonebrink v. Stonebrink, 2 Or App 328, 468 P2d 546 *320(1970); Cooley v. Cooley, 1 Or App 223, 227, 461 P2d 65 (1969). This principle was well stated in Rea v. Rea, 195 Or 252, at 261, 245 P2d 884 (1952):
" '* * * [W]e have grave doubts as to whether any appellate court, acting on a cold record, is as likely to arrive at a wise decision concerning child custody, as is the trial judge who sees the parents, hears the testimony, and observes the child. It is for this reason that we have repeatedly held that the decision of the trial court is entitled to great weight in such cases. This court is ill-equipped to exercise a wise and humane discretion on a record which, of necessity, fails to disclose the subtle, but highly persuasive, evidences which are manifest to the trial judge. A wise appraisal of the character, fitness, emotional stability, affection, hostility, or motive, of the parties to a contested divorce case, who are competing for the custody of a child, or a like appraisal of the inner attitude of the child itself, requires more than can generally be made to appear on the printed page.’
* * * * »
Fourth, and perhaps most important of all, I think, is the matter of the wishes of the child, Roxanne, as to custody. Roxanne has lived in both environments and has repeatedly stated that she does not wish to return to her mother’s home to live, and wants to go with her father. I am of course aware that this is not conclusive. I believe, however, it should be accorded considerable weight in this case. From my examination of the testimony, I am fearful that ordering Roxanne to go back to the environment which she has so consistently and emphatically rejected, will be productive of irreparable long range damage to this child. I base this conclusion, not only on the report and testimony of the court’s investigatory officer, but on the statements of the child. The investigator, a man with 12 years’ field experience in his present position in addition to his special education and training, stated in his official report as follows:
"The most obvious impression gained in this study is the close relationship between Roxanne and her father. She really sees him as her nurturing parent. She appears *321rather fearful of her mother and really striving to weave her way into a two parent home. My concern is that she will regress if not allowed to live with her father. She is apparently less happy in school and is reportedly having problems dealing with her peers.
"The mother tends to deny the problem and does not appear to be aware of the psychological implications.
"On the basis of my study of this case it is suggested that Roxanne be given an opportunity to live with her father.”
Even more informative than the report was the investigator’s testimony at the trial. Excerpts appear in the margin.2
The central impression one receives from this record is that of a little girl who was often extremely lonely and unhappy in her surroundings while living *322with her mother and various babysitters. It is apparent that she found happiness in her periodic visitations with her father and stepmother. She learned that in their home she could and did receive the care, nurture, parental companionship and stability for which she yearned, but which she found lacking with her mother and her babysitters. She is obviously trying every way she can to escape from her adverse environment and join her father’s household.
To ignore Roxanne’s pleas and send her back to be reared in the old environment and in the same manner as before would be a traumatic emotional experience for this child which could well have lasting psychological aftereffects.
For all the reasons discussed above, I am unable to join the majority and therefore respectfully dissent.

 See, Vaughn and Vaughn, 25 Or App 655, 550 P2d 1243 (1976); Vann and Vann, 24 Or App 31, 544 P2d 175, Sup Ct review denied (1976).

 "A [Mr. Bruñe, investigator] My recommendation was that Roxanne would be with her father. This was based upon the — my impressions of the parties involved, particularly, in reference to Roxanne’s desires and her feelings at this point. I think that she — in this situation really has developed kind of an outstanding relationship with her father due to circumstances and the mother’s working situation and that she was really striving to stay with her father. And she had been with him as much as possible, vacations and weekends and so forth. And she really in her own little way in her own mind was trying to develop a family unit and really saw this — her position with father and stepmother as being part of a family. And I don’t think she was experiencing this with her mother.
"Q [Father’s counsel] I note in your statement in that 'She appears rather fearful of her mother.’ What led you to that conclusion?
sfc >}« s}: sf:
"A The fear. During the interview she was very cautious in talking with me about what I might say to her mother and I said that this was between the two of us. And I said, 'Well, why are you fearful?’ and she said, That mother would become angry with me and chase me around the house and scream at me.’ I think those are the terms.
«* * * * *
''Q [Mother’s counsel] * * * Now, why do you feel she would regress if not allowed to live with her daddy?
"A [Mr. Bruñe] My impression was in talking with Roxanne that she is really very much into living with her father and that as she is now nine years of age she is in pre-adolescence, she is working through a lot of feelings about parental figures. She has a strong desire to live with her father. I think that we’ll see some regression on her part if *322this doesn’t happen, that there will he a breach between mother and daughter. This is my, I wouldn’t say prediction, but this is what I’m feeling from this situation.
* * * s}:
"THE COURT: Mr. Bruñe * * * What did you see — and you made some pretty strong statements in the report which I normally don’t get, where the psychological needs of the child or psychological implications apparently were not being met by the mother. In what way?
"THE WITNESS: Well, I think basically the feeling of being part of a family, of having someone that she could talk with, feeling generally comfortable with the parent. My feeling was, Your Honor, that this relationship between the father and the daughter was developed when the mother was working evenings and they were together a good deal of time and that he prepared the meals, put her to bed, helped her with school work, this type of thing and that this relationship has continued even after the divorce.”