Court Opinion

ID: 9832190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:41:43.764573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:43.697369
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Our attention has been directed, in the motion for rehearing filed by appellant, to the- fact that we did not clearly pass upon her contention that the trial court was not authorized to divide the custody of the minor child between the appellant and ap-pellee. In deference to the motion, we have again carefully reviewed the record and the authorities bearing upon this question: Insofar as we have been able to determine, no case in Texas holds that a trial court is without authority to divide custody of a child between the parents. Such decrees have been criticized 'by the courts. In the case of Martin v. Martin, Tex.Civ. App., 132 S.W.2d 426, in an opinion by the late Judge Alexander, while a member of the Waco Court, a judgment awarding the custody of the child part time to each of the parents was held to be unwise. On the other hand, there are many cases in which similar orders have been sustained by our courts.
The trial court in this case found:
“ * ⅜ * that the environment of the home that defendant would furnish the child would not be as favorable as the plaintiff could 'furnish and that she could not furnish to said child during the school periods as suitable a home as the' plaintiff is able and willing to do; that the defendant can, if she is willing to do so, provide a comfortable home for the said child during that period of time to which she has 'been awarded her custody.”
The foregoing findings have support in the evidence. It is therefore , apparent if the trial court concluded a better home could be furnished the child during the school term by its father, it was the duty of the court to place said child in such home during the time she would be in school. No doubt, the trial court had in mind that during the summer months, when the • child was not in school, it would be proper and fitting to place the child in the home provided by the mother. We have no way of knowing all of the things the trial court considered when he entered the judgment. The child is entitled to the love and affection of both her parents. But due to the unfortunate circumstances of a separation and divorce of the parents, she was deprived, to a certain extent, of constant association with both of them. ' Consequently, the trial court did the next' best thing. After hearing all of the facts and circumstances in the case, he concluded that 'it would be to the best interest of the child to live in the home of her father *998during the school term and in the home of her mother during the summer vacation. After all, the paramount issue is the best interest of the child. Unless the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the custody, we would not be authorized to disturb its judgment. We are unable to see any abuse of discretion in entering a judgment dividing the custody under the facts in this case.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.