Court Opinion

ID: 9633920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:07:49.209347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:45.456549
License: Public Domain

*311TANZER, J.
This is an appeal from an order changing custody of the parties’ nine-year-old daughter from the mother to the father. The issue is whether there was an adequate showing of changed circumstances1 to justify the order. The trial court did not specify the circumstances which it deemed to be sufficiently changed to justify the modification. To have done so, would have been helpful on review. We review the record de novo, giving weight to the trial court’s comments regarding credibility.
A decree dissolving the parties’ marriage was entered on August 28, 1975. In accordance with the agreement of both parties, custody of the child was awarded to the mother. On April 13,1976, seven-and-a-half months after the entry of the original decree, the husband filed a change-of-custody show cause motion.
At the time of the hearing the father was employed as a sales representative, the same position he held at the time of the original decree. His job requires him to make occasional overnight business trips. He has remarried since the decree and his new wife is willing and apparently able to devote all of her energy to the care of the child and the maintenance of a family home. Since the decree the father has moved from a small apartment into a three-bedroom home.
Prior to the change of custody motion, the child spent nearly every weekend and most of her school holidays with her father and his new wife. These visits were mostly spent taking vacation trips, visiting with the father’s family and in other family-related activities. She has developed a close and affectionate relationship with both her father and her stepmother *312and she told the circuit court that she would prefer to live with them rather than with her mother.
The mother is employed, as she was at the time of the dissolution, as a registered nurse. Her schedule, which requires her to work from 2:30 p.m. until 11 p.m. approximately three nights per week, has not changed since the entry of the dissolution decree. She prefers this shift because of the importance she attaches to seeing her child off to school each morning, which would be impossible if she worked any other shift. When the mother works, the child is with babysitters from shortly after she arrives home from school until late at night. Following the dissolution, the child stayed with neighbors at these times. Rather than waking the child late at night, the mother frequently allowed her to stay with the neighbors overnight. Later the mother retained a succession of three women to serve as live-in babysitters. The arrangement called for one of the women to be home by 5 p.m. when the mother worked. Thus the child was left alone from 2:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. on those nights. Occassionally, the sitters were late and the child was left alone even longer. However, the child knew how to contact her mother at work and there was a neighbor nearby to whom the child knew she could go in an emergency.
Since the dissolution decree the mother has developed a relationship with a physician at the hospital where she is employed. They admit that they have occasionally been physically intimate while the child has been playing in or around the house, but deny the father’s charge that the child has seen them in bed together. The physician has not stayed with the mother overnight. In an in camera interview, the child indicated that her mother and the doctor occasionally talk privately in the bedroom, but that she had never actually seen them doing so. The record gives no indication that the relationship disturbed the child in any way.
*313The father presented other evidence in an effort to show that the mother’s care was inadequate. It was charged that the child’s hygiene was poor, that her grades in school were falling, that she was poorly fed and that she was frequently left alone in the morning to prepare for school and fix her own breakfast while the mother slept. All of these charges were contradicted by evidence presented by the mother. The evidence in support of the charges was not impressive to the trial court and is not to us. Moreover, the father testified that these circumstances existed during the marriage and at the time of the dissolution. In short, the only changed circumstances established at the hearing were the father’s remarriage, the mother’s relationship with the doctor, and the changes in child care arrangements for evenings when the mother worked.
 The change-of-circumstance rule is designed to serve two functions: to discourage repeated litigation of the same issues and, more important, to provide young children with a stable environment. Crane v. Crane, 17 Or App 637, 523 P2d 596 (1974). We have long recognized the importance of a stable and secure home life and have consequently placed a high value on the stability of parental relationships.2 Therefore the rule requires a showing of some change in circumstances which makes either the benefits to be gained from a change of custody or the detriment caused by not making the change outweigh the damage done to a child who is exposed to shifting parental figures. McCutchan v. McCutchan, 5 Or App 96, 483 P2d 93 (1971).
The father has failed to make such a showing. The mother’s relationship with the doctor does not constitute such gross moral misconduct as has been held *314sufficient to justify a change in custody. Sullivan v. Sullivan, 236 Or 192, 387 P2d 571 (1963); ORS 107.137(4). The other cases cited in the dissent are not to the contrary; none is precedent for the proposition that discreet sexual intimacy between single adults is a moral transgression justifying a change of custody.
Similarly, the mother’s difficulty in arranging child care does not rise to the level of parental neglect which has been held to constitute a substantial change of circumstances. Gwinner and Gwinner, 24 Or App 743, 547 P2d 151, rev den (1976); Yeamans v. Yeamans, 17 Or App 556, 523 P2d 565, rev den (1974). A single working parent must necessarily rely upon the assistance of others in the care of his or her children. This father chose not to seek custody of the child at the time of the separation and dissolution, because of the difficulty he would have had. The mother accepted custody despite the difficulty. Her arrangements have occasionally been makeshift, but the child was never left without resources.
 In this proceeding the mother’s performance as a parent has been closely examined and vigorously attacked. As a result, isolated instances of poor judgment or indiscretion have been disclosed, but it is doubtful that any parent’s performance would appear unblemished upon such close scrutiny. A change of circumstances is not established by showing that the custodial parent has made occasional mistakes since the entry of the decree, for every parent does, and a working parent in particular may have special problems of child care. Where the proof of change of circumstances is based upon specific instances of purported parental misfeasance — and often that is the only knowledge available to a concerned noncustodial parent — these events must be of a nature or number that reflect a course of conduct or pattern of inadequate care which has had or threatens to have a discernable adverse effect upon the child. No such showing has been made here.
*315Nor has the father shown that the benefits to be derived from a custody change outweigh the need for stability. The primary reason that the trial court ordered a change of custody was because the father was, since his remarriage, capable of providing the child with a family environment.3 Although a two-parent home is usually preferable, remarriage of the noncustodial parent does not of itself justify the upset and confusion which necessarily accompany a change of custody. To hold otherwise would encourage divorced parents to race to the altar.
The closest thing to a substantial change of circumstances is found in the astute, but less tangible observations of the court’s family counselor. He concludes that the father was the primary nurturing parent during the marriage because of the mother’s work schedule, and that the child’s gravitation toward the father’s new two-parent home has become more pronounced since the separation. The adjustment of a child to the post-separation situation is properly considered if the change-of-circumstance rule is not to become formulaic. Here, the child’s adjustment was influenced by a visitation arrangement which put her with her father for most of the good times and with the mother for everyday life. The child’s relationship with her mother is further undermined, intentionally or otherwise, by such things as the father not allowing the child to bring her at-home clothes to his house on visits.
The child’s adjustment to a dissolution would best be served by her realization that the custodial home is her permanent home, however green the other *316parent’s pasture may be, and that it will not be changed simply because of the practical difficulties of a working custodial parent or the earlier remarriage of the noncustodial parent. That is what the policy of stability, which the change-of-circumstance rule is designed to promote, is all about, and it is the responsibility of both parents to work to that end.
 It is clear from the record that, despite the bitter accusations of both parties, the court must here choose between two competent and loving parents. In such a case the interests of the child are better served by maintaining the status quo than by attempting to determine which parent and which reasonably suitable home is more satisfactory. Accordingly, we hold that there was not here a change of circumstances sufficient to justify a change of custody.
This legal solution, however, leads us not to a practical solution, but rather to a dilemma. A stay of the order changing custody was neither requested nor granted. Custody was actually transferred to the father on June 12, and he has already moved to modify the visitation clause by severely restricting the mother’s rights. The child has now been in the father’s home for over six months. The effect of a reversal will be to take the child away from her home once again to return her to her mother, thereby disrupting the child’s present situation. It is anomalous for us to order yet another uprooting of this nine-year-old in furtherance of the policy of preservation of the stability of her home environment.
 To refuse to reverse a change of custody order entered in the absence of a substantial change of circumstance, however, would be to deny the aggrieved parent the right granted under ORS 107.115(3) to appeal an erroneous order. It is our function to hear this case de novo upon the record compiled in the trial court as of the time it was heard in the trial court, and it would be unfair to the mother to deny her custody of her child solely because of the *317immediate execution of an erroneous order. Therefore, we reverse the modification order and remand for entry of an order denying the motion for change of custody.
In the process of entering a new order, we trust that the trial court will take reasonable steps to assure itself that the child will be returned with a minimum of emotional trauma and with as healthy a personal adjustment as the circumstances permit. The order should provide for the father’s full cooperation in making the transition.
 The appeal process in custody cases will by the very awkwardness of its nature cause similar practical problems in future cases. Such problems should be avoided if possible. Where a change of custody is ordered and the question is close or presents no imminent danger to the child’s welfare, a stay should be granted to freeze the situation. In that way, the entitlement of a parent to de novo appellate review can be preserved without unnecessary emotional cost to the child. A motion for a stay should first be made to the trial court which, having seen and heard the witnesses, is in the best position to decide upon the wisdom of a stay. If a stay is denied, it would be well if the trial court explains its reasons for the denial so that if a subsequent application is made to this court for a stay, we may give all due weight to the trial court determination. Cf. Von Weidlein/N.W. Bottling v. OLCC, 16 Or App 81, 514 P2d 560, 515 P2d 936, 517 P2d 295 (1973), rev den (1974).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Custody of children, once determined, should not be changed in the absence of a substantial change of circumstances. Bogh v. Lumbattis, 203 Or 298, 280 P2d 398 (1955); Mackey v. Mackey, 9 Or App 113, 496 P2d 21 (1972); McCutchan v. McCutchan, 5 Or App 96, 483 P2d 93 (1971).

In Smith v. Green, 4 Or App 533, 537 (n. 1), 480 P2d 437 (1971), and McCutchan v. McCutchan, 5 Or App 96, 99, 483 P2d 93 (1971), we quoted with approval a statement by Dr. Andrew Watson, psychiatrist and professor of law, who said that stability is "practically the principal element in raising children, especially pre-puberty ones.”

 The trial court found that the child was "in crying need of the kind of stability and family life that she kept asking her mother for” and that "the child has found a family * * * being supplied by the father.” The Family Services Department of Multnomah County recommended that custody be changed to the father primarily because of the child’s desires and because of the developing family relationship between the child and her father and stepmother. The record also strongly implies that the father would prefer to minimize any contact between the child and her mother and his conduct openly reflects that unfortunate attitude.