Durst v. Roach

10 Citing cases

  1. Thein v. Squires

    250 Iowa 1149 (Iowa 1959)   Cited 15 times
    Denying mother's application to modify prior habeas corpus decrees, stating: "It is to be assumed the court knew and respected the presumption referred to in arriving at these earlier decrees."

    And in Blundi v. Blundi no change was ordered. Much the same language as quoted last above is expressed in Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 346, 62 N.W.2d 159, 161; Jensen v. Sorenson, 211 Iowa 354, 364, 233 N.W. 717; Knochemus v. King, 193 Iowa 1282, 1285, 188 N.W. 957, 959. Durst v. Roach quotes with approval from Winter v. Winter, 184 Iowa 85, 88, 166 N.W. 274, 275: "It is highly desirable that the status of the child be fixed as quickly as possible, and that it be disturbed thereafter as little as possible." [7] It appears without doubt that when these children were placed with defendants plaintiff was taking an extended vacation from the responsibilities of motherhood and consequently the children were in great need of good homes.

  2. Finken v. Porter

    246 Iowa 1345 (Iowa 1955)   Cited 21 times

    He has appealed. [1] Our decisions subsequent to Knochemus v. King, 193 Iowa 1282, 1285, 188 N.W. 957, uniformly treat habeas corpus actions involving custody of minors as equitable in nature, reviewable de novo. Ellison v. Platts, 226 Iowa 1211, 1215, 286 N.W. 413, and citations; Paulson v. Windelow, 236 Iowa 1011, 1016, 20 N.W.2d 470, 473; Lursen v. Henrichs, 239 Iowa 1009, 1013, 33 N.W.2d 383, 385; Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 344, 62 N.W.2d 159, 160, and citations. [2] Although our review is de novo, the trial court's findings are entitled to substantial weight (much weight, according to some of our decisions), because of its better opportunities to weigh the testimony.

  3. Halstead v. Halstead

    259 Iowa 526 (Iowa 1966)   Cited 43 times

    [4] Also, if the person having lawful care of a child at the time its custody is sought to be changed has properly provided and supervised its social, moral and educational needs for a substantial period of time, and the child has become attached to the environment and the people who have made possible the happiness, security and comfort of its early years, a court is not justified in transferring that custody to another except for the most cogent reasons. See Kouris v. Lunn, 257 Iowa 1267, 1274, 136 N.W.2d 502, 506; Thein v. Squires, 250 Iowa 1149, 1158, 97 N.W.2d 156; Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 346, 62 N.W.2d 159; Wiggins v. Wiggins, 239 Iowa 1279, 1297, 34 N.W.2d 607; and Jensen v. Sorenson, 211 Iowa 354, 364, 233 N.W. 717. Moreover these views appear to be in accord with the philosophy of social interests predominant in the twentieth century, and there is no apparent plausible reason to now abandon them.

  4. Stafford v. Taylor

    158 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 1968)   Cited 5 times

    Touching on the same subject we said in Halstead v. Halstead, supra, loc.cit., 144 N.W.2d 864: "* * * if the person having lawful care of a child at the time its custody is sought to be changed has properly provided and supervised its social, moral and educational needs for a substantial period of time, and the child has become attached to the environment and the people who have made possible the happiness, security and comfort of its early years, a court is not justified in transferring that custody to another except for the most cogent reasons. See Kouris v. Lunn, 257 Iowa 1267, 136 N.W.2d 502, 506; Thein v. Squires, 250 Iowa 1149, 1158, 97 N.W.2d 156; Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 346, 62 N.W.2d 159; Wiggins v. Wiggins, 239 Iowa 1279, 1297, 34 N.W.2d 607; and Jensen v. Sorenson, 211 Iowa 354, 364, 233 N.W. 717."

  5. Kouris ex rel. Wynn v. Lunn

    136 N.W.2d 502 (Iowa 1965)   Cited 6 times

    [3] III. While the law raises a presumption that a minor child's welfare will be best served in the care and custody of a parent, the presumption is rebuttable, depending on the welfare of the child. Stevenson v. McMillan, 250 Iowa 737, 95 N.W.2d 719; Finken v. Porter, 246 Iowa 1345, 72 N.W.2d 445; Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 62 N.W.2d 159; In re Guardianship of Plucar, 247 Iowa 394, 72 N.W.2d 455. It is somewhat tragic that the habits of a young mother, only 25 years of age, preclude her from the satisfaction and joy of caring for and rearing her child.

  6. In re Guardianship of Carrick

    98 N.W.2d 315 (Iowa 1959)   Cited 7 times
    Noting nonresident of State may serve as guardian if "interests of the child will thereby be promoted"

    In child-custody cases the welfare of the child is the controlling consideration. Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 344, 62 N.W.2d 159; In re Guardianship of Lehr, 249 Iowa 625, 633, 87 N.W.2d 909, 914, and citations. The judgment of the district court recites:

  7. Ball v. Ball

    96 N.W.2d 317 (Iowa 1959)   Cited 10 times

    The ultimate consideration of the court in such cases is the best interests and welfare of the children brought before it. Helton v. Crawley, 241 Iowa 296, 309, 310, 41 N.W.2d 60, 68, 69, points to this rule and states: [2] "* * * In Herr v. Lazor, 238 Iowa 518, 527, 28 N.W.2d 11, 16, we reannounced the following statement in Jensen v. Jensen, 237 Iowa 1323, 1324, 1325, 25 N.W.2d 316, 317: `We have said time and again, and the modern authorities agree, that in a matter of this kind the welfare of the child is superior to the claim of either parent and the wishes of the parent are entitled to little if any consideration.' Statements of like import have been many times expressed by this court. [Citations]" Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 343, 344, 62 N.W.2d 159, 160, follows the foregoing holdings and cites the Crawley case, supra, and many other authorities. Patzner v. Patzner, 250 Iowa 155, 159, 93 N.W.2d 55, 57, a divorce case involving child custody, states:

  8. State ex Rel. Gering v. Bird

    96 N.W.2d 100 (Iowa 1959)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming a juvenile court's finding that a child was a “neglected child” in relation to her father even though the child had been well cared for by her grandparents

    [4] Our review of this case is de novo. Savery v. Eddy, 242 Iowa 822, 45 N.W.2d 872, 47 N.W.2d 230, 48 N.W.2d 230; In re Dependency of Stamp, 198 Iowa 1136, 199 N.W. 1007; McKay v. Ruffcorn, supra. [5] In cases of this type, as well as in habeas corpus cases, the welfare of the child is to be given first consideration. Risting v. Sparboe, supra; Joiner v. Knieriem, 243 Iowa 470, 52 N.W.2d 21; Finken v. Porter, 246 Iowa 1345, 1347, 72 N.W.2d 445; Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 343, 62 N.W.2d 159; Herr v. Lazor, 238 Iowa 518, 28 N.W.2d 11. [6] The court appointed a guardian ad litem to appear for Jo Ann and make report to the court.

  9. Stevenson v. McMillan

    95 N.W.2d 719 (Iowa 1959)   Cited 6 times

    [4] More important than the above principles, and as a primary consideration in child-custody cases, is the welfare of the child. Risting v. Sparboe, supra; Joiner v. Knieriem, 243 Iowa 470, 52 N.W.2d 21; Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 62 N.W.2d 159; Herr. v. Lazor, 238 Iowa 518, 28 N.W.2d 11; Smidt v. Benenga, 140 Iowa 399, 118 N.W. 439; Ellison v. Platts, supra; Scheffers v. Scheffers, 242 Iowa 563, 47 N.W.2d 157; Paintin v. Paintin, 241 Iowa. 411, 41 N.W.2d 27, 16 A.L.R.2d 659, and citations; Freese v. Freese, 237 Iowa 451, 22 N.W.2d 242; Rust v. Trapp (Iowa, N.O.R.) 201 N.W. 565; Jensen v. Sorenson, supra. [5] II.

  10. Justice v. Hobbs

    63 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 1954)   Cited 5 times

    While much weight is given to the trial court's decision, the appeal is triable de novo with the basic question being — what is for the best interests of the child. Lancey v. Shelley, 232 Iowa 178, 2 N.W.2d 781; Paulson v. Windelow, 236 Iowa 1011, 20 N.W.2d 470; Watters v. Watters, 243 Iowa 741, 53 N.W.2d 162; Durst v. Roach, 245 Iowa 342, 62 N.W.2d 159. Plaintiff and Darlene Hobbs (now Heard) were married in May 1941 at Des Moines, Iowa, where he, a member of the armed forces, was stationed.