Court Opinion

ID: 9673763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:18:08.927754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.989957
License: Public Domain

Leflar, J., dissenting. This dissent relates only to that part of the majority opinion which reverses the Chancellor ’s award of custody of the children to their father. The majority opinion states that “the polestar in a child custody case is the determination of what is for the best interest of the child, ’ ’ a principle borne out by many wise decisions of this court in days gone by. Failure to apply the principle here is the reason for this dissent. The effort to decide who is at fault for poor care of children is a hopeless task when illness and poverty share the causal role. Thelma Heisler, mother of the children here, undoubtedly did the best she could. Her new husband was an unskilled day laborer, sometimes employed, sometimes not. His wages were low. A sixth baby was born to the 27-year-old mother after she remarried; she has been sick since the sixth baby came; her cousin testified that the work had been “too much for her” since then; after that she couldn’t keep the house or the children clean and do all the other work that had to be done. The new husband’s mother lived with them, making nine in the family. The house in which they lived was a crude three-room structure. One of the rooms, the kitchen, leaked so badly they couldn’t use it, so “we have the kitchen in the front room now.” The third room was the b'edroom, and was upstairs. It had three beds where the nine of them slept, “but we moved downstairs while the baby is so little. ” “We didn’t have a garden this year.’’ The majority opinion mentions the fact that appellee in May, 1948, “without consent of Thelma (appellant) or court order took one of the children, Betty Jo, to his home. ’ ’ The evidence indicates this child was sick when the father took her. Concerning this Thelma testified: “I have not been well, and I couldn’t get up to dress her or any of them. ’ ’ The father testified that Thelma agreed that he might take the child to the doctor, and then 4 4 she had to have certain treatment regularly, and I knew we had more time to get her well and take care of her than they did. ” As to the health of the other children Thelma’s new husband testified that they had bad colds and “the baby had them sores on him like Mr.. Roberts said. ’ ’ With this must be contrasted the home which appellee father has to offer his children. With the $3,600 savings which he accumulated in California after he and Thelma were divorced in 1946 he paid $1,200 down on a $5,000 farm and is arranging a long-time F.H.A. loan for the balance; he has bought a tractor and other equipment, cows, chickens and hogs for the farm; he has bought good furniture for the house. The farmhouse has electricity; there are three bedrooms; it will make a good home for children to grow up in. It is near a church and a school. Ninety acres of the 192-acre farm are in cultivation, and appellee is an experienced farmer, hardworking and ambitious. Appellee and his new wife are childless. His love for the children cannot be questioned, any more than can their mother’s. His wife has given much tangible evidence of genuine regard for the children, and hopes to treat them as her own. Technically the case should be looked at as of the date of trial, but it is a fact, admitted in oral argument here, that since the Chancellor’s decree was rendered in December, 1948, the children have been living with their father, and for over a year they have grown accustomed to the standards of his home. The majority not only denies them those standards; it returns them to the home of the mother and step-father after they have come to know a better life. The Chancellor heard the evidence and saw the parties and witnesses in this case. He knew the facts better than the cold record can show them to this court. He put the welfare of the children ahead of parental fault and concluded that 4 4 the children will be better off . . . and grow up to make better citizens if the Court allows the fattier to take them and raise them.” This court should reverse the Chancellor only if the weight of the evidence is contrary to his findings. It is my opinion that the evidence justified his finding of changed conditions, and that his decree should be affirmed. George Rose Smith and Dunaway, JJ., join in this dissent.