Court Opinion

ID: 9854711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:12:27.277847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:16.783060
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
*559E. B. Sahlstrom and Albert H. Ferris, Eugene, for the petition.
LaVerne M. Johnson, Corvallis, contra.
On Appellant’s Petition por Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks rehearing on the merits following the announcement of onr decision affirming the trial conrt.
The transcript from the trial court reveals that an adjourned hearing was had. As we noted in the first opinion, this hearing was not reported. Counsel for the respondent represented to this court in oral argument that testimony was taken at the adjourned hearing. We presume this representation by counsel was not intended to mislead the court. It had that effect, however. The record does not reveal whether testimony was, or was not, taken at the subsequent hearing. *560The dispute we noticed earlier had been continued by the parties since the decision was announced.
ORS 17.515 provides for the settling of a disputed record in the trial court. State ex rel. v. Ekwall, 135 Or 439, 443, 296 P 57. The statutory method of determining what was or was not said in the trial court remains unchanged by the 1959 appellate code now found in ORS eh 19. Such a dispute must be resolved in the trial court. The filing of affidavits and counter-affidavits in this court is an idle gesture. See Fry v. Ashley, decided this day.
The transcript before us is certified as required by ORS 19.078. We must presume that it is correct 'and complete. ORS 8.360. We conclude that we were not at liberty to rely upon counsel’s statement that the trial court heard unreported testimony, even if the statement be true. Since proof of counsel’s assertion does not appear in the transcript, the statutory presumption created by ORS 8.360 forbids our reliance upon the representations of either counsel in this court with reference to what was done below.
We have, accordingly, re-examined the transcript in order to resolve the issue presented by the briefs and arguments upon the merits. We have concluded that the trial court was in the best position to weigh the testimony of the parties and to decide whom to believe. The trial court found that the conduct of the mother in refusing to cooperate with the father in his visits with their child was not in the best interest of the child. The trial court believed that the mother’s expressed opposition to visits by the father would tend to alienate the child from its father. The court then held that the mother’s attitude, augmented by that of her present spouse, constituted a change in circum*561stances following the decree which justified the change in custody. Levell v. Levell, 183 Or 39, 52, 190 P2d 527.
We have found no basis in the transcript of testimony upon which to say the trial court was in error. The order modifying the decree is affirmed.
Petition denied. Former opinion modified. Costs to neither party.