Court Opinion

ID: 9561904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:18:25.082506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:14.187521
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part)—I concur with the majority's statement of the rule in regard to the disposition of interstate custody disputes. However, I would apply the rule prospectively.
The children have been with the father since 1975. From what can be gleaned from the record, the children are in a good environment and seem to be happy and adjusted to their present surroundings. I would not uproot them and return them to California just for the sake of having a uniform rule in regard to interstate custody cases.
The record does not disclose the present home situation in California. There are affidavits in the record which, if true, cast doubt that the home environment in California is a fitting and proper place for the children.
In any event, I believe it would behoove the majority to rule that a hearing should be held prior to ordering the children to California, to determine whether it is for the welfare of the children to be forthwith returned. Failing this, the majority has not discharged its duty to provide that, in a proceeding for custody of children previously awarded to petitioner by foreign divorce decree, "the welfare of the children is the chief consideration". In re *788Penner, 161 Wash. 479, 481, 297 P. 757 (1931).
Brachtenbach, J., concurs with Rosellini, J.
Petition for rehearing denied June 15, 1978.