Court Opinion

ID: 9848262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:15:30.787241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:09.967152
License: Public Domain

*299BISTLINE, Justice,
specially concurring.
A new rule crystallizes out of this case. I do not say that the rule is right or that it is wrong, but it has evolved, and I write only that we openly face up to that which we are doing, to-wit, adopting the Doctrine of Second Chance. I would hope that that new doctrine is applied with exceeding care, and would not consider concurring here except for placing utmost reliance on the trial judge’s evaluation of the respondent’s basic character — from which she had departed, but to which she was able to return.
The trial judge did find the change of circumstances which were alleged in appellant’s petition. Witness this language of findings 10 and 9:
“Conditions became so intolerable that had they not changed, this court would have felt impelled to find the best interests of the children demanded a change in custody.
“Mrs. Chislett let her interest in the welfare of others out-weigh her interest in her own welfare, and placed the welfare of the children in jeopardy.”
The change from conditions of jeopardy and from the intolerable occurred, of course, at or near the time appellant was to file his petition asking for custody. I see it of little moment that respondent filed her divorce action shortly before appellant filed this petition to modify. The intolerable conditions did exist, and had existed for a considerable duration of time.
Appellant with good reason relies on Tomlinson v. Tomlinson, 93 Idaho 42, 454 P.2d 756 (1969), where the Court said “[t]he custody of children should not be awarded as a reward for reformation or good behavior nor to encourage continued good behavior.” Id. at 46, 454 P.2d at 760. Here it is clear that respondent’s timely reformation was all that kept her from losing custody, and it is readily understandable why appellant pursued his case to this court, only to be met with an opinion which does not distinguish the Tomlinson case, and assesses him with costs at the same time.
Although appellant was unsuccessful in his attempt to assume custody of the children, his concern as to the environment and conditions to which they were subjected undoubtedly precipitated the remarkable reformation. Hence I would not penalize him with costs, leaving each party to pay his or her own.