Court Opinion

ID: 9790595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:55:39.827039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.461150
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McWilliams
dissenting:
The trial court after full hearing granted Inez’s motion requesting permission to remove the three children of the parties from the State of Colorado to the State of Minnesota, with the proviso that Walter should have the right to custody of the three in Colorado during the summer vacation.
In granting the aforementioned motion, the trial court found, inter alia:
“That the plaintiff [Inez] has been, and is at the date of this hearing, a fit and proper person to have custody of the three children of the parties; that the plaintiff seeks to remove the three children to the town of Sebeka, in the State of Minnesota for good and beneficial reasons affecting the welfare and best interests of the said children; that the plaintiff will be able to spend more time with her children in Minnesota, and the chil*451dren will not have to be cared for by baby sitters to the extent it is now necessary for them to be so cared for in Boulder, as a result of the Mother’s having to be employed; that the Mother is a registered nurse and may not have to work at all in Minnesota due to the difference in the cost of living between Sebeka, Minnesota, and Boulder, Colorado, but that, if it is necessary for her to work, she will be able to find more remunerative employment and at more desirable hours in Minnesota than in Boulder, Colorado, thus permitting her to spend more time with her children; that the Mother has family and friends in Minnesota, whereas she has no family in Boulder; * * * that the values attributable to the defendant’s (Walter’s) visitation in this case are not of a kind that are more particularly important or vital to the children than is usual in such cases; . . . that the father remarried immediately after the decree of divorce entered in this action and his present wife has two children; . . . that the proximity to each other of the parties has resulted in bickering and dissension between them; that the bickering and tension is aggravated by the extreme frequency of the visitation privileges of the defendant, and that the aforementioned bickering, tension and frequency of visitation has had an adverse and disturbing effect upon the children of the parties; that the welfare of the children would be best served by allowing the Mother to move to the State of Minnesota where she will be better able to rear the children, carry out her custodial responsibilities under less economic stress and mental tension and where she will be able to spend more time with the children and give them closer supervision ...”
The issue to be resolved is whether there was evidence before the trial court which would warrant and support its commendably detailed and explicit findings. The majority holds that “there is no showing ... of any substantial reasons of health, cultural opportunities or other advantages contributing to the best interests of *452the children, justifying their removal from the State of Colorado,” and that “in fact, the exact contrary overwhelmingly appears.” I do not so view the record, and with such appraisal of the evidence I am in respectful but quite definite disagreement.
The only witnesses at the hearing were the parties themselves, each of whom was allowed to testify virtually without objection as to their respective wishes and desires in connection with the contemplated move of the children to Minnesota, and their reasons in connection therewith.
From the record I learn that Inez and Walter were reared and educated in Minnesota, Inez being a registered nurse and Walter having received his bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, a master’s degree in physics, as well as a doctorate degree. The Tanttila family only moved to Boulder in about 1958 when Walter accepted a teaching position at the university. Three and one-half years later their marriage was terminated by a judicial finding that a divorce should be granted to both parties on the statutory grounds that both were guilty of “extreme and repeated acts of cruelty, constituting mental cruelty.” Pursuant to stipulation the decree in divorce provided that custody of the three children be placed with Inez, with Walter having the right to custody of all children on alternate weekends, “from Friday evening until Sunday evening.” Walter also was similarly ordered to pay $180 per month as support money for the three children, and $100 per month as alimony.
Only a few days after the entry of the divorce decree Walter married a woman who had two children by a prior marriage, and they proceeded to set up their own home.
Being unable to run her household on $280 per month, Inez found it necessary to obtain part-time employment with the Boulder Medical Center, occasionally working .from 8:30 in the morning until 5:30 in the evening, and *453on other occasions working only the morning or afternoon shifts. The children were turned over to a baby sitter when Inez was away from the home.
Inez in effect testified that in her view the interests of her three children would be better served if she could work less and spend more time in the home, and that such could be accomplished by moving to Sebeka, Minnesota, her home town. Specifically, in response to the question as to why she wished to take the children to Minnesota, she testified: “ . . . because I am aware that I can live much less expensively in that area. My parents, my family are there. I will have greater support and help. I will be among friends, and I am aware that living is cheaper. I would probably be able to maintain a proper life for the kids, work as little as possible so that I would have time to be the baby sitter for them.”
Without recounting all of Inez’s testimony, it seems apparent to me, at least, that the dominant reason for moving to Minnesota was Inez’s desire and definite expectation to be more of a full-time mother, which most certainly is in the best interests of her children.
Additionally, the record establishes that subsequent to the divorce there was ever-increasing bickering between Inez and Walter, occurring on several occasions in the presence of the children when Walter came to take the children for the weekend into his new home. The older child was said to be already showing symptoms of “divided loyalty.”
In short, I find ample evidence to support the action of the trial court. What is in the “best interest” of a minor child is not always capable of being proved with mathematical certainty. Many factors must be considered and weighed by the trial judge, whose responsibility in this type of proceeding is generally difficult and quite frequently most delicate in nature. In the instant case, an experienced and capable judge not only heard the parties, but of equal importance had the oppor*454tunity to observe their demeanor on the witness stand. All we can do here is read a cold record, whereas the trial court not only heard the parties, but figuratively speaking looked into their very hearts. Under these circumstances I am disinclined to second guess the trial judge on which course of action is for the best interest of the Tanttila children, and even if I disagreed with his decision (which I do not), I would not substitute my judgment for his.
Nor am I impressed, as the majority appears to be with Walter’s “willingness to do more than at present required, in the way or providing ‘baby sitters’ support in order to have his children available for visitation rights as originally contemplated.” As I understand it, Walter suggests that his present wife should and would quit her outside employment, thereby making it possible for her to “baby sit” with Inez’s three children while Inez herself was working. No doubt Walter is sincere in this offer and perhaps such arrangement would be preferable to having the children cared for by a stranger, but the much better course of action, so clearly discerned by the trial court, is to have the three very young children cared for by their own mother.
I would affirm the judgment.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Hall joins in this dissent.