Burns v. Burns

7 Citing cases

  1. Beebe v. Chavez

    602 P.2d 1279 (Kan. 1979)   Cited 13 times
    In Beebe, although the trial court had found otherwise, our Supreme Court concluded there was no evidence the child was neglected by his mother's alleged failure to provide proper medical treatment.

    "The defendant also contends that K.S.A. 60-1501 through 60-1505 and 60-1610 are unconstitutional and that they violate petitioner's right to family integrity and privacy in contravention of the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Defendant also contends that her Sixth Amendment rights were also violated. This Court is of the opinion that in child custody proceedings the rights of the parents are not at issue and that the child's best interest is the cardinal principle in determining the right as between parents to custody, Burns v. Burns, 177 Kan. 116, Lyerla v. Lyerla, 195 Kan. 259. In Re. Bort, 25 Kan. 215 [ sic 308].

  2. Lewis v. Lewis

    537 P.2d 204 (Kan. 1975)   Cited 16 times
    In Lewis v. Lewis, 217 Kan. 366, 368, 537 P.2d 204 (1975), it is stated that, as between parents, "[b]efore a custody order will be modified the movant has the burden of showing the child can be better cared for if the requested change is granted."

    The trial court is vested with continuing jurisdiction to modify a custody order when justified by a change in circumstances. ( Moran v. Moran, 196 Kan. 380, 411 P.2d 677; Travis v. Travis, 163 Kan. 54, 180 P.2d 310.) Before a custody order will be modified the movant has the burden of showing the child can be better cared for if the requested change is granted. ( Burns v. Burns, 177 Kan. 116, 276 P.2d 308.) This question is subject to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court after consideration of all the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence, and on appellate review its decision will not be disturbed by this court unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. ( Kimbell v. Kimbell, 190 Kan. 488, 376 P.2d 881; Hardenburger v. Hardenburger, 216 Kan. 322, 532 P.2d 1106.

  3. Perrenoud v. Perrenoud

    206 Kan. 559 (Kan. 1971)   Cited 29 times
    Ruling that trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow mother to relitigate custody in Kansas since she defied California court orders which she had previously recognized as valid and had succeeded in modifying

    Beginning with the early cases written by Mr. Justice Brewer ( In re Bort, 25 Kan. [*]308, and Chapsky v. Wood, 26 Kan. 650), this court has consistently adhered to the rule that when a controversy arises as to the custody of a minor child, the primary question to be determined by the court is what is for the best interest of the child. ( Burns v. Burns, 177 Kan. 116, 276 P.2d 308; Whitebread v. Kilgore, supra; Lyerla v. Lyerla, 195 Kan. 259, 403 P.2d 989, and cases cited.) Our statutes now provide that "physical presence within the state" is made the jurisdictional basis for custody orders in divorce cases.

  4. Whitebread v. Kilgore

    391 P.2d 1019 (Kan. 1964)   Cited 3 times

    Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a change of custody? The defendant contends that since the plaintiff retained counsel to represent her and subsequently left the jurisdiction of the court with the minor children, she was in contempt of court, and her failure to appear and "throw light" on the matter raised the presumption that her testimony would have been unfavorable to her; further, that the defendant's evidence made a prima facie showing that a change of custody should have been granted. He cites and relies upon Burns v. Burns, 177 Kan. 116, 276 P.2d 308, and to language in that opinion which reads: ". . . even if she were contemptuous in that respect [having left the jurisdiction of the trial court with the minor children when the order giving her custody expressly provided that she should not take the child from the jurisdiction of the court — which was not the case here] there is no reason to change the custody of the child to defendant unless the defendant is shown to have a place and facilities for caring for the child as good or better than the plaintiff is providing. . . ."

  5. Kimbell v. Kimbell

    190 Kan. 488 (Kan. 1962)   Cited 10 times

    The paramount issue in a motion to change custody of minor children as between the father and mother is the welfare and best interests of the child involved. ( Kamphaus v. Kamphaus, supra; Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, 8, 309 P.2d 705; Burns v. Burns, 177 Kan. 116, 119, 276 P.2d 308.) This issue was recognized by the trial court in the instant case.

  6. Tuttle v. Tuttle

    66 N.M. 134 (N.M. 1959)   Cited 24 times
    In Tuttle, the husband filed a motion asking that the wife be held in contempt for removing their children from the state contrary to the terms of their divorce decree.

    These rights were denied by the order made below. Martinez v. Martinez, 1946, 49 N.M. 405, 165 P.2d 125; Piatt v. Piatt, 1919, 32 Idaho 407, 184 P. 470; Brown v. Brown, 1946, 66 Idaho 625, 165 P.2d 886; accord: Burns v. Burns, 1954, 177 Kan. 116, 276 P.2d 308."

  7. Bell v. Odil

    60 N.M. 404 (N.M. 1956)   Cited 10 times

    These rights were denied by the order made below. Martinez v. Martinez, 1946, 49 N.M. 405, 165 P.2d 125; Piatt v. Piatt, 1919, 32 Idaho 407, 184 P. 470; Brown v. Brown, 1946, 66 Idaho 625, 165 P.2d 886; accord: Burns v. Burns, 1954, 177 Kan. 116, 276 P.2d 308. Under the circumstances of this case, because the trial court departed from the matters in issue, we do not believe the failure of the appellants to tender requested findings of fact and conclusions of law forecloses our review.