Court Opinion

ID: 9626172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:04:32.204806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:22.534874
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Justice,
with whom Mc-QUADE, C. J., and SMITH, J., concur (dissenting) .
I concur in the opinion of Justice Knudson except as to the conclusion reached and the reasons therefor.
In my opinion the most important factors involved in the determination of the future custody of Cherie are the age and background of the child. She was eight years old at the time of the hearing in the district court and is now past nine years of age. During the past six years she has been reared and cared for by Mr. and Mrs. Miller with whom the court found she has had a good home with adequate and proper schooling, care and surroundings, and where she has become well adjusted. The mother has not had the company or care of the child since she was four months old. The mother is a stranger to the child. While this separation of mother and child and the formation of ties of affection for those who have cared for her during the early years of her life was not the result of any fault of the plaintiff, it is a fact which fate ordained for the individuals involved. There is nothing which a court can decree which will change the past. To take the child out of her present environment and destroy the attachments made and her accustomed mode of life after so many years, and place the child in unfamiliar surroundings with unfamiliar people is not in the best interests of the child, and may result in irreparable harm to her.
The evidence in the record is amply sufficient to sustain the order of the trial court.
What is said in Justice Knudson’s opinion regarding the natural and legal custodial right of a parent has particular force and application to decrees awarding custody of children in divorce actions. This is shown by the cited case, Piatt v. Piatt, 32 Idaho 407, 184 P. 470 (1919). In Jain v. Priest, 30 Idaho 273, 164 P. 364 (1917), the children had been taken from the custody of their parents on the ground of their unfitness and later restored to their custody in a habeas corpus proceeding upon a showing of their reformation.
In this case we are not presently concerned with the original award of custody. As shown by the record, that decision was made by the divorce decree in 1956. In the present proceeding the court was requested to modify the custody provisions of the divorce decree by transfer of the custody, from those who had exercised it under the decree during the intervening years, to a parent who has had very little contact with the child from the time she was four months old. This situation presents a problem quite different from that which ordinarily *143faces a divorce court in the first instance. Cf. Peterson v. Peterson, 77 Idaho 89, 288 P.2d 645 (1955); Jeppson v. Jeppson, 75 Idaho 219, 270 P.2d 437 (1954).
The trial court’s findings of fact are general, and somewhat deficient in detail, as pointed out by Justice Knudson; but when considered under the rule applied in Cazier v. Economy Cash Stores, 71 Idaho 178, 228 P.2d 436 (1951), are sufficient to support the order entered. See also: Angleton v. Angleton, 84 Idaho 184, 370 P.2d 788 (1962) ; Whittaker v. Kauer, 78 Idaho 94, 298 P.2d 745 (1956).
The order is affirmed.
No costs allowed.