Court Opinion

ID: 9685675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:56:54.967223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:09.244299
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I concur in the majority’s holding that the appellant was in default. I disagree she was in default of a hearing regarding child custody.
The petition filed on March 8, 1988, concerns visitation. It does not request a change in child custody. On July 14, 1988, the trial court entered a stipulated order continuing the matter to be scheduled later. The order also provided for a home study of the father’s home to determine “whether visitation is in the best interest of the said child.” The order does not expand the visitation issue to one of custody of the child.
On August 8, 1988, the father filed an application for rule to show cause. On August 15, 1988, the court, upon joint application of the parties, continued the hearing on rule to show cause without time to be reset upon the application of the father.
On December 27, 1988, the father filed another application to show cause. This application did not seek a change in child custody.
On January 3, 1989, the court entered an order setting a hearing on the contempt action. It did not say anything about a change in child custody.
On January 4, 1989, the father filed a motion to amend his petition to request for the first time a change in child custody. On January 17, 1989, the court ordered: The court sustains the motion for leave to amend and orders the pleadings, without further filing or service, amended in conformity with the amendment filed by the plaintiff on January 4, 1989.
On March 8, 1989, the court declared the appellant mother in default and granted the father full custody of the minor child.
In my judgment the mother was not given due notice of the hearing on custody. She was in default on the contempt action. However, she did not receive due process notice of the change of the action. She did not receive proper notice of the child custody claim.
I would hold the court is without jurisdiction to hear the child custody action until the appellant is properly served with a notice of the child custody claim.