Court Opinion

ID: 9664417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:18:49.602538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:06.210174
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
Appellant complains because in our original opinion we referred to alleged hearsay statement made by a psychiatrist, which statement, says appellant, being only hearsay, has no probative force. We agree that mere hearsay has no probative force as evidence. But we do not agree that the circumstances under which the testimony was presented here made the statement hearsay. Regardless of whether the statement of the psychiatrist was true or false, a fact question was presented as to what the psychiatrist said.
It was appellant herself who on her direct examination first introduced testimony as to what the phychiatrist said and its effect on her. We quote from her testimony, first on direct examination and then on cross-examination:
“Q. Where are those children now? A. At the Odd Fellows Home in Cor-sicana, Texas.
“Q. Have they been there since the divorce was granted? A. Yes.
“Q. Was that by agreement between you and Captain Sherman at that time? A. Yes, it was.
“Q. State what your circumstances were at the time the divorce was granted, with respect to your physical condition, your living conditions, and anything that might have a bearing on your ability to take care of the children? A. Well, at the time the divorce was granted I was not employed at the time, and also I did not have a home to take the children to. I was living with my mother, and Captain Sherman and I visited the phychia-trisi and it zvas on his suggestion that the children should be placed in a home of mutual friends until either of our lives could be settled.

“Q. The psychiatrist suggested that? A. That is right.

“Q. Is that the reason you all agreed for the children to go down to Corsicana? A. That is right. * * *

"Q: Did you make a contest for the children at that time? A. I did not.

"Q. Why didn’t you? A. Because it had already been agreed upon that they would be placed in the Odd Fel-lozvs Home.

“Q. When and with whom was the agreement made? A. With the psychiatrist, and also with my lawyer.” (Emphasis ours.)
From the above testimony it will be seen that Mrs. Roy says in substance that she consented for the children to be placed in a Home because a psychiatrist suggested it. We think appellee was entitled to testify in rebuttal to her statement. He did so. Here is his version of the facts and circumstances in connection with the placement of the children in the Odd Fellows Home rather than in the custody of either parent:
“Mr. Hurt: Did you have any agreement with her as to putting the kids in the Home down there? A. I did not.
“Q. Tell the court how that happened ? A. If the court will bear with me, that goes back to the psychiatrist, which actually was prior to the date of the divorce.
“Q. She spoke about it. Proceed with what the psychiatrist said. A. Will the Court allow the reasons why *334she went to the psychiatrist? The Court: Don’t go behind that. * * *
“Q. Mr. Hurt: You did go to a psychiatrist with her? A. Yes.

“Q. And you consulted a psychiatrist with her? A. I did.

"Q. Did the psychiatrist say at that time she should not have the children because of the situation that both of you had at that time, no place to take them? A. He did not. He made a different statement.

"Q. What was his statement? A. His statement was that Mrs. Roy was immature and would not accept the responsibility for raising her children; that she should not have the children, nor visit them. * * * At that time Mrs. Roy was very vehement about not having the children placed in an institution. * * *
“Q. Mr. Hurt: There was no agreement then as to your putting them in a Home? That was your ozvn idea? A. That is correct. * * * A. At the time of the divorce, which was January 7, 19SS, we appeared in Judge McCraw’s court for an uncontested divorce. At that time I requested the Court to place the children in the custody of the Home — the Odd Fellows Home at Corsicana. * * * This was after the date with the psychiatrist, when my wife had refused to take care of them. * * * At the time of the divorce hearing, the present attorney for the plaintiff could not contact the plaintiff to find out if she agreed to putting the children in the Home or not. By stipulation betzveen counsel, it was agreed to put the children in the Home.” (Emphasis ours.)
From the record as quoted above we think a fact issue arose as to whether, as appellant claims, the children were placed in the Odd Fellows Home by consent of both parents because the psychiatrist suggested it, or whether, as appellee claims, the children were placed in the Home by stipulation of counsel, but upon his request alone, after a vain effort to locate appellant to obtain her consent. What the psychiatrist actually said and its effect (not the truth of what he said), thus became a fact issue. And the testimony doubtless had some bearing on the question, always important, of the credibility of the witnesses.
However, if we are in error in the above conclusion, we nevertheless are still of the opinion that the judgment must be affirmed. If we exclude consideration of the psychiatrist’s statement, there is sufficient competent evidence remaining to support the trial court’s judgment. For example, we quote again from appellant’s testimony:
“A. I was very much upset and was receiving treatment from the doctor for my nerves, which had gotten to the very worst extreme.
“Q. With respect to your present physical condition, what is your present physical condition, as far as you know from the way you feel? A. Well
“Q. Do you still have that trouble with your nerves ? A. I am still nervous to a certain extent; not quite as. bad as I was.
“Q. Are you still receiving treatment from the doctor for that? A. Not at this time * * *.
“Q. What has the psychiatrist said, recently about your nerves? A. I have not been to a psychiatrist recently. The psychiatrist never said anything about my nerves. It was my own physician.”
The trial court saw and heard the parties-It was the court’s duty to place the children where, in his opinion based on the evidence, their interest, not the interest of either parent, would be best served. Wc are bound by the court’s decision if it finds-*335support in the evidence. We believe it does in this case.
Appellant also complains because we referred to the investigator’s report. As we pointed out, the report withheld any recommendation as to custody. We did not base our decision on the investigator’s report, and there is nothing to indicate that the trial court did so. In our opinion there was ample competent evidence before the trial court, exclusive of the investigator’s report and the psychiatrist’s statement, to support the court’s judgment.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.