Court Opinion

ID: 9685094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:23:02.39548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.225510
License: Public Domain

Minor W. Millwee, Justice. This appeal involves the custody of a six-year-old girl, Bobbie Sue Brown. Susan Brown obtained a divorce from appellant, Leonard Brown, in the Pulaski Chancery Court in August, 1947, on the ground of general indignities and was granted custody of their three minor childrén of the ages of 6, 4 and 2 years, respectively. The parties had been separated about six months or a year before rendition of the decree which also directed appellant to pay $100 per month for support of the children. After the divorce Susan and the two older children resided in the home of the children’s grandmother, Mrs. Susie Summerville, at Traskwood in Saline County, while the youngest child, Bobbie Sue, remained in the home of her uncle and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Mike H. Sullivan, in Little Bock, Arkansas. Mrs. Sullivan is Susan’s sister. Appellant remarried May 1, 1948, and Susan remarried in December, 1949. ■ In January, 1950, appellant was cited for failure to pay support money as provided in the original decree and an order was entered which recites that Susan should retain custody of the children; that the two older children should remain in the home of the grandmother; and that Bobbie Sue should remain with the Sullivans. The order further directed appellant to pay $50 a month for support of the two older children and make a “private contract” with the Sullivans for the support of Bobbie Sue. The Sullivans never requested support money for Bobbie Sue and appellant has paid none. Susan died in March, 1950. On September 2, 1950, appellant filed a motion to • modify the original decree by awarding him the custody of his children. After a hearing, a decree was entered giving appellant custody of the two older children, but directing that Bobbie Sue remain in the custody of the Sullivans. This appeal is from that part of the decree denying appellant custody of Bobbie Sue. The evidence discloses that appellant was in the armed services at the time of Bobbie Sue’s birth and for six months thereafter, during which time Susan resided with the Sullivans and received the regular allotments from the government. After Susan moved to Traskwood with the two older children, she divided her time between the home of the grandmother and that of the Sullivans where Bobbie Sue remained. At the time of the hearing Bobbie Sue had been with the Sullivans about two and one-half or three years, was nearly six years of age, and had started to school. The Sullivans have no children” of their own and have furnished a good home for the child. At the time of the trial appellant had been regularly employed for 19 months as maintenance engineer for a bakery. His present wife is also employed from eight a. m. to four p. m. Appellant defaulted in the payments of $100 per month as provided in the original decree, but made the reduced payments of $50 per month to Mrs. Summerville until he filed his motion for modification of the custody decree. He stated that he was out of work when he defaulted in the $100 payments and borrowed money to make partial payments. The amount of his default in the $100 payments is not shown. He frankly admitted that he had not visited the children as often as he should have, but stated that he had visited Bobbie Sue nearly every Friday, which was his day off from his work. He and his present wife were buying a home and paying on an automobile at the time of the trial and his wife planned to quit work as soon as the car was paid for. In the meantime they planned to have the seventeen-year-old sister of appellant’s present wife live with them and help care for the children. Appellant’s present wife testified that the children had visited in their home at different times, that she got along well with them and was willing and able to care for them. Both appellant and the Sullivans were renting their homes at the time of the hearing. The general rule applicable in cases of this kind is stated in 27 C. J. S., Divorce, § 314, as follows: “On the death of a parent, the power of the court over custody of the child derived from the divorce action, together with the effectiveness of the decree, terminates, and the surviving parent ordinarily succeeds to the right of custody. So, in a proceeding between the surviving parent and a third person, the parent, if fit, is properly awarded custody, but where the surviving parent is an unfit associate for the child or has not evidenced an affectionate and solicitous attitude toward the child, its custody will not be taken from respectable relatives of deceased parent.” In an exhaustive annotation in 128 A. L. R. 990 it is stated: “It is a general rule that where the custody of children is granted to their mother by a decree of divorce, such custody does not forever cut off and bar the father’s right to their custody so long as the decree is unmodified, but only establishes the right of custody between the two spouses during their lives, and that upon the death of the mother her right does not descend nor can it be transmitted, but that the right of the father to the custody of the children is revived, provided, of course, he is a person suitable for the custody of the children.” In Keezer, Marriage and Divorce (3rd Ed.), § 725, the rule is succinctly stated, as follows: “Upon the death of the spouse given custody the right to such custody usually devolves upon the surviving parent unless such survivor is unfit or the best interests of the child would otherwise require.” See, also, Schouler, Divorce Manual, § 316; 17 Am. Jur., Divorce & Separation, § 689. In all cases affecting the custody of infants, this court has repeatedly stated that the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling consideration by which courts are to be guided. Justice Robins, in the opinion in French v. Graves, 205 Ark. 409, 168 S. W. 2d 1108, said: ‘ ‘ The paramount consideration in this case, as in all other cases involving the custody of a minor child, is the welfare of the child, but the rights and feelings of the parents must also be weighed and due regard given to the natural desire of the parents to have and rear their offspring.” In several recent cases we have repeated our approval of the following statement from Johnston v. Lowery, 181 Ark. 284, 25 S. W. 2d 436: ‘ ‘ The law recognizes the preferential rights of parents to their children over relatives and strangers, and where not detrimental to the welfare of the children, they are paramount, and will be respected, unless special circumstances demand that such rights be ignored. Herbert v. Herbert, 176 Ark. 858, 4 S. W. 2d 513; Loewe v. Shook, 171 Ark. 475, 284 S. W. 726. “The courts will not always, however, award the custody of an infant to the father, but, in the exercise of a sound discretion, will look into the peculiar circumT stances of the case, and act as the welfare of the child appears to require considering primarily three things: ‘ (1) Respect for parental affection, (2) Interest of humanity generally, (3) The infant’s own best interest.’ ” The facts in every custody case are different and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in determining what is best for the permanent welfare of the child. Kirk v. Jones, 178 Ark. 583, 12 S. W. 2d 879. It is clear from a consideration of our own cases and the authorities generally that appellant is entitled to the custody of his child unless he is an unsuitable person to be entrusted with its care, or the circumstances are such as to render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. The facts and circumstances in the instant ■case do not warrant the conclusion that appellant is an unfit person to have custody, or that he has forfeited the preferred right which the law gives him. The chancellor recognized this by giving him custody of the two older children. The question whether the child’s permanent welfare' demands that it remain with its uncle and aunt is most perplexing and one that is, of course, fraught with speculation. This opinion could be unduly extended by listing arguments on both sides of the question. Both’ appellant and the Sullivans are apparently able to furnish a suitable home for the child. Unless exceptional circumstances are involved, this court has indicated that young children should not be separated from each other by dividing their custody. Vilas v. Vilas, 184 Ark. 352, 42 S. W. 2d 379. To affirm the decree appealed from would mean the continued separation of Bobbie Sue from her brother and her sister as well as the loss of companionship and guidance of a father. Under all the circumstances, we have concluded that the permanent welfare of the child would be best served by allowing appellant to have the custody of all his children. That part of the decree awarding custody of Bobbie Sue to the Sullivans is accordingly reversed and the cause remanded with directions to award such custody to appellant.