Court Opinion

ID: 9617278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:53:56.934946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:07.626444
License: Public Domain

WHITE, P. J.
I dissent. From a reading of the factual background surrounding this litigation, as contained in the majority opinion and after a consideration of the evidentiary features reflected in the various hearings had in the trial court, I am persuaded that, having in mind the best interests and welfare of the child in question, the court below abused its discretion in not granting a stay pending determination of the correctness of its order. The discretion with which the trial court is clothed is not plenary nor is it an arbitrary one. It must be exercised along legal lines and, in a legal sense, discretion is abused whenever, in its exercise, a court exceeds the bounds of reason—all the circumstances before it being considered. In the early ease of Lybecker v. Murray, 58 Cal. 186, the court said, at page 189:
“. . . Under no circumstances is the discretion of the Court to be exercised arbitrarily, but it is a discretion, governed by legal rules, to do justice according to law or to the analogies of the law, as near as may be. . . . It must be exercised within the limitations above stated to promote substantial justice in the case.”
That the court below was not satisfied with the wisdom or justice of its order from which the appeal herein was taken is evidenced by the fact that the order in question provided that “the whole matter” was continued to March 11, 1957, for further hearing, the court commissioner having stated that “it would appear that the court should review the situation of the plaintiff and the minor child in five or six months to determine -whether or not the plaintiff will carry out her intentions of making this home a permanent one.”
It is my reasoned opinion that the further and continued judicial “bouncing around” like a rubber ball of the child here involved should cease.
I would issue the writ of supersedeas.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 20, 1957. White, P. J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 27, 1957.