Court Opinion

ID: 9533412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:31:36.627298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:02.858107
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
In concur in all parts of the foregoing opinion except that part which approi'cs of the court’s order making the father’s visitation of the children dependent upon his contributions to their support. If he fails to make the payments for their support there are ample means of testing his ability to do so and of forcing him to do so, if able.
The best interests and welfare of the children should not be confused with the father’s ability or willingness to provide for their support.
The general language quoted from the case of Kane v. Kane, 53 Mont. 519, 165 Pac. 457, does not appeal to me as correct.
I think that part of the court’s order making the father’s right of visitation dependent upon support money being paid should be modified accordingly.