Court Opinion

ID: 9715090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:53:59.428405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:31.400663
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: An examination of the entire record in this case indicates to me that the trial court judge was under a misapprehension as to the prior difficulties of the plaintiff. It further indicates that the trial court denied the father custody of the child partly because of this misapprehension that the father had been previously adjudged to be not in compliance with orders of the circuit court. This record shows that the wife continually sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the court and to inflict various and sundry punishments on the plaintiff. The record further indicates that the husband sought whatever help he could get with reference to compliance with the visitation order. A chronology: June 1971 Husband filed a complaint for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty. June 1971 Counterclaim by the wife for divorce. September 1971 Husband awarded divorce; issue of custody of the child reserved. September 1971 An order providing for joint custody. June 1972 A petition to modify the custody order filed by the husband. August 1972 Petition by the wife for an increase in child support. March 1973 Decree modified as to certain matters of visitation by one parent while in custody of the other. August 1973 Petition by the wife for rule to show cause, alleging the husband to be $40 in arrears in support. July 1974 Petition by the wife to modify as to support and visitation. July 1974 Motion by the wife for bond forfeiture. December 1974 A hearing on all pending matters; and also in December 1974 Petition by the husband to modify the decree as to visitation. The record indicates that in August 1974 a supervisor of the County Welfare Department in Bemidji, Minnesota, wrote a letter to the circuit court indicating that the husband had contacted the agency, outlining the fact that Kenneth was with the father and that when the time came to return to the mother in Clinton, he refused to go, stating that he was unhappy and if he had to go, he would run away. The letter further recited that the living situation was very adequate, the family relationship was excellent, and offering the services of that agency to the circuit court of De Witt County. There was a motion for a continuance on the pending matters and objections by the wife. January 1975 There was an order again modifying the visitation. February 1975 A further petition by the wife for rule to show cause for failure to return child. August 1977 Motion for change of custody filed by the husband. January 1978 Motion by the wife to dismiss the petition for change of custody and, then, finally, this unhappy situation culminated in this order for contempt issued in February 1978. At the time the trial court entered the order, it was under the misapprehension that the husband had previously been found in contempt of court. January 1978 In addition to the recited chronology, after the husband and his family moved from Minnesota to Missouri, the record indicates that the wife went to the State’s Attorney’s office in De Witt County, sought a warrant against the child’s stepmother, went to the police department to give them a letter that the child had written to her, and then went to Missouri and there visited with school officials. This record does not demonstrate that the husband is in contempt. On the contrary, it demonstrates that he did all that he could reasonably be expected to do to comply with the orders of the circuit court short of conduct that could well result in a 16-year-old child running away from both parents. This record, unfortunately, represents a continuing bitter fight between parents for the custody and attention of a child. The court and its processes were used but as instruments of that controversy. I would reverse the finding for contempt and enter judgment here that the custody be changed for the short period of time between now and February 1979 when the child will be of age to control his own destiny.