Court Opinion

ID: 9561339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:07:31.197002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:43.809399
License: Public Domain

WORTHEN, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with Mr. Justice Henriod that this case must be remanded. I believe, however, that the court was in error in failing to award $30 per month support money for each child.
In the case of Callister v. Callister, 261 P.2d 944, this Court at page 946, after quoting Sec. 30-3-5, U.C.A.1953, said:
“This court has held that, by reason of the statute, an agreement or stipulation between parties to a divorce suit as to alimony or payments for support of children is not binding upon the court in entering a divorce decree, but serves only as a recommendation, and if the court adopts the suggestion of the parties it does not thereby lose the right to make such modification or change thereafter as may be requested by either party, based upon change of circumstances warranting such modification.” (Emphasis ours.)
The statement is salutory and intended to permit the trial court to look behind the stipulation and prevent fraud or coercion by one party upon the other, and to safeguard the interest and welfare of the children.
The father of three minor children had agreed that the court award to each child $30 per month support money. For reasons not readily apparent the trial court cut the award for each child to $25 per month.
The court in finding of fact No. 6 found as follows:
“That the defendant is receiving from the U. S. Government as payment for partial disability incurred in the military service of the United States the sum of $102.00 per month, and he is also employed in Las Vegas, Nevada, and is earning $70.00 per week.”
It was suggested that the court may have been influenced in its action by the defendant’s disability, but if that disability makes it impossible for him to continue to earn the $70 per week he is earning,' then the court could reduce the amount if the changed condition warrants a re-^ duction. But if the award of $25 per child (per month) is permitted to stand, then no additional award may be made without showing either increased earnings by defendant or greater need on the part of plaintiff.
However, while defendant has an income of approximately $400 per month, I am unwilling to approve an award of $75 for the support of his three children leaving him $325 with which to make four trips per month from Las Vegas to Cache *427County to visit his children. More money even at the expense of fewer visits will in my opinion promote the best interest of the children.
The rule announced in the case of Callister v. Callister, supra, that stipulations are recommendations only, should not he permitted to make a father’s duty to his. minor children less than he admits it should he: Such an unconscionable award only tends to add to the public expense for the care of dependent children.
The trial court should be directed to increase the award for the children from $25 to $30 per month per child unless changed conditions are shown after further hearing justifying the award of only $25 per child.