Court Opinion

ID: 9662192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:02:20.575471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:37.310261
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, dissenting. It is somewhat with reluctance that I write these dissenting remarks for I have always been a strong believer in home discipline, and am of the view that many a delinquent boy or girl has acquired that deplorable status because of a lack of discipline at home. In other words, I sometimes think that as many, or more, delinquents are created by being overprivileged, as by being underprivileged. Nonetheless, I cannot bring myself to approve of the disciplinary methods used by this mother on her two sons. In making these remarks, I shall not depend on the testimony of the grandparents (who acquired their information from the boys) since this is hearsay (though not objected to) and shall only relate some of the incidents testified to by the boys themselves, or incidents admitted by the mother. The four most notable examples in my view are (1) the breaking and giving away of the boys’ toys and presents, (2) the incarceration of the younger in what the boys and mother referred to as the “devil’s room”, (3) sending the children to school without breakfast, and (4) holding the younger boy’s head under a water faucet. In discussing these instances, let us look to the record, though the occurrences will not be discussed in the order listed. The two boys, Jeffery and Eric, are nine and seven years of age respectively. The mother admitted holding Eric’s head under a water several times, stating that she did this because he was having a “tantrum, screaming and yelling”. Another punishment, which I consider extreme, was administered on occasions when the mother stated Eric was misbehaving. She took him to the basement (referred to as the “devil’s room”) and locked him in by himself. There were no lights in the basement and he would be kept there for some period of time as his punishment. From the record: “Q. What other kind of punishment have you used other than putting him underneath the water? A. And spanking him. Q. What else? A. And there was a time when he decided he just would not do anything he was required to do. I said fine, if you’ve separated yourself from the family, you go down in the basement and stay in the room down there. Q. How long did he stay in that room down there? A. Half an hour maybe. Q. How many times did you leave him down there all day? A. I never shut him anywhere all day. I never shut him away anywhere. Perhaps thirty minutes or less. Q. Go ahead, what other punishments have you used? A. That’s it. Q. Do you know about this devil’s room? A. That’s the little room I was telling you about. Q. And you put him in this room? Did it have any lights in it? A. Lights in it? Q. Yes. A. No, it didn’t. Q. Did you lock the door? A. Yes, I did. Q. What was in the room? A. Just a bunch of little old suitcases and things like that. Q. Just a bunch of junk? A. Uh-huh. Q. How long would you keep him locked in a room like that? A. Maybe a half an hour. Q. No window light or electric lights? A. There was a window and there was light in the room that came in around the door. The door is not a tight door at all.” I cannot agree that proper discipline includes inducing a child to fear the dark. According to the nine-year-old son, Jeffery, the two boys were assigned various tasks, scrubbing floors, mopping, washing dishes every night and the next morning, making their own beds, etc. (and certainly I have no objection to the assigning of tasks or jobs). However, Jeffery testified that if the tasks were not performed by the time the mother returned home from work, the boys went to bed without supper, and if they did not complete the morning chores by 7:00 A.M., they didn’t get any breakfast. I cannot approve sending these boys to school without breakfast since it could well be detrimental to their health. More inhumane than these facts, in my opinion, was the action of this mother in destroying and giving away the toys and presents given to the children. Eric testified that if he didn’t get his work done on time, appellee would pick up a toy and say “You’re not going to enjoy having this toy” and would stomp on it. He also said that she had given some of his toys and clothes to the “Goodwill”, including a pair of boots that he had received as a present, and was never permitted to wear.1  The breaking of the toys was not denied by the mother and she also admitted giving them away. From the record: “Q. What — tell us about the toys they have. A few toys? Lot of toys? A. Since I have been divorced they have been provided a great amount of toys through their grandparents and through their father. There was very little left that I could give them. Q. Is your closet like the one in my house, it’s overflowing with toys? A. That’s right. Q. And— A. I saw fit to get rid of most of their toys and injurious things so I could provide these myself.” Q. Did you from time to time give away the boys’ presents like bicycles? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you replace them? A. I have replaced most of them. Q. Did you replace the bicycles? A. I have not.” This breaking and giving away of toys and presents seems to me to be utterly senseless, and I can only conclude that this is occasioned by hatred of the father and his parents, not a desirable sentiment or trait to impart to one’s children. Not only that, but the mother only receives $300.00 per month take-home pay, and she can hardly afford to spend a portion of this money replacing toys and presents. I have not mentioned several other matters2 testified to by the children since the ones already mentioned, in my opinion, should preclude the mother from being given custody at the present time. The majority mention that there has been no showing of a change in circumstances since the original decree. The evidence does not reflect the testimony given at the time the divorce was granted, but the things that I have mentioned took place after the awarding of the divorce and custody. Of course, there actually has been a change in that the children are living with their grandparents, and do not desire to return to their mother. Also, other women friends lived with the mother and her children for a period of time, the children complaining that these women whipped them with a board, called the “board of education”. The majority also mention that the evidence denotes that the home was investigated by the Social Services Department. Appellee testified: “I assume my husband had hired a lawyer to have my situation of communal living investigated and they came at their leisure one evening to see my home and my situation and said they were very much impressed with the children, my home and myself. And offered to go to court for me if I had any trouble whatsoever in the future.” The fact remains that, though the present litigation shows a full-scale custody action, no testimony, .through deposition or otherwise, was given by employees of the department. It might be that if appellee presently lost custody by virtue of the actions mentioned, she would recognize that the law does not condone the acts of a person, even a parent, in going beyond the realm of reason in administering disciplinary action. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.   These boots were given by the grandparents who, at the time of the trial, were keeping these children.    For instance, Jeffery testified that he and his brother slept in the basement on beds "made for camping. We called them camping bunk beds.” The bunks contained no mattresses or springs. “All they had was the cloth on them. Just like a cot.”