Court Opinion

ID: 9584596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:50:33.683754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:10.251678
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, C. J.
(dissenting). Changing in effect the custody from the mother to a relative of the father of a little child is a matter of too serious concern to be decided, as it appears to have been in the proceeding upon the order to show cause. It is understandable why the court was not satisfied that the existing custody was an improper one.
The showing of temper referred to in the majority opinion is not so uncommon a manifestation as to disqualify a parent or destroy an existing arrangement under the court. And, as here, where, as said in the majority opinion, “the home offered by the mother is suitable and adequate,” considered with the fact that there is no finding of unfitness, there is no support for the order as entered below. The order amending the judgment reads:
“It is ordered, that the judgment heretofore rendered in this action be and the same is hereby amended as follows, to wit:
“1. The care, custody, and control of said minor child, Jean Dodge, is hereby granted to the plaintiff, Clayton Dodge, with reasonable rights of visitation in the defendant, Antje Pinck, and that said child shall remain in the state of Wisconsin and subject to the jurisdiction of this court until further order of this court.
“2. That payment for the support of said child by the plaintiff shall terminate forthwith.”
*446In the-case of Smith v. Smith, 209 Wis. 605, 609, 245 N. W. 644, the court refers to sec. 247.24, Stats., under which, in that case, the child was given to one other than a parent. The court said:
“Viewing the order of the court as a modification of the judgment with respect to the custody of the child, as we are impelled to do, we think that the order was void upon its face for the following reasons: (1) The court did not find that the interest of the child demanded a change of custody. (2) The court did not find that neither of the parents was a fit and proper person to have the care and custody of the child. (3 ) The court gave the care and custody of the child to one who was not a resident of this state.”
And in that case the court calls attention to the cases of Hopkins v. Hopkins, 39 Wis. 167; McCabe v. McCabe, 126 Wis. 154, 105 N. W. 665.
Under the recognized rules which obtain, I am of the opinion that the order should be held void, thus reversing the judgment.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Gehl and Mr. Justice Steinle join in this dissent.