Court Opinion

ID: 9548211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:59:44.265124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:38.400915
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ADAIR:
(dissenting in part but concurring in the result).
I am unable to agree with much that is said in the foregoing opinion but I concur in the result and in the order determining the appeal.
The parties were divorced on June 19, 1952, in the State of Oregon. The decree awarded the care, custody and control of the minor children of the marriage to the mother, who is the appellant in the instant action. With both parents before the Oregon court it had jurisdiction to award the custody of the minor children of the marriage irrespective of whether such children were actually within the state of the forum at the time of the entry of the decree. State v. Rhoades, 29 Wash. 61, 69 Pac. 389; Beckmann v. Beckmann, 358 Mo. 1029, 218 S.W. (2d) 566, 9 A. L. R. (2d) 428; Smith v. Ansley, Tex. Civ. App., *446257 S.W. (2d) 156; Krasnow v. Krasnow, 140 Conn. 254, 99 A. (2d) 104.
The jurisdiction to determine the question of custody of the minor children of the marriage does not depend upon the domicile of the children but it arises out of the power possessed by every sovereignty having jurisdiction over the parents to determine the status and the custody that will best meet the needs and interests of their minor children.
Where a court has once acquired jurisdiction of the minor children their removal from the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court, either prior to or subsequent to the entry of a decree awarding their custody, does not oust such trial court of jurisdiction to fix their custody.
Where, as here, the custody decree has been given and entered in the court of a sister state it should be regarded as final for the purpose of being accorded full faith and credit in another state until such time as it shall have been modified or annulled by the court that rendered it.
It has been held that, as a matter of comity, a court should refuse to deal with the future welfare of minor children who are already wards of a sister state court and it should recognize a custody decree of the court where originally given and entered. Burns v. Shapley, 16 Ala. App. 297, 77 So. 447. Also see Brown v. Cook, Utah, 260 Pac. (2d) 544, 546.
In Conrad v. Conrad, Mo. App., 296 S.W. 196 at page 198, the court said: ‘ ‘ However, the removal of a child from the state is not a taking of it beyond the jurisdiction of the court in the sense that the court thereby loses jurisdiction to change or modify its decree in the future, should subsequent events require it, inasmuch as both parents, having necessarily been parties to the action for divorce, are personally bound by the court’s decrees and orders.”
In my opinion it is wholly immaterial whether the minor children are rightfully or wrongfully removed beyond the boundaries of the state wherein the decree was given and entered for in neither case does such removal oust the original trial court *447of jurisdiction to make the proper custody award or to change or modify its decree in such manner as the welfare and best interests of the minor children demand. See my dissent in Application of Enke, 129 Mont. 353, 287 Pac. (2d) 19 at pages 26-39.
For these reasons I dissent to much that is stated in the majority opinion but concur in the order reversing the decree and remanding the cause with directions that the minor children of the parties be and remain in the custody of their mother, she being “such person as is by law entitled thereto.” R.C.M. 1947, section 94-101-21.